IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/prg/jnlpol/v2022y2022i1id1339p51-76.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Support for Informal Carers: Has the New Benefit Improved Their Ability to Care?

Author

Listed:
  • Vladimír Barák
  • Vojtěch Krebs
  • Helena Mitwallyová

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to evaluate the subjective impact of provided care on the quality of life of informal carers, to assess the institution of long-term carer's allowances from the viewpoint of informal carers, and to identify additional social policy tools that could, in carers' opinion, improve the provision of care. Our research shows that provision of care leads to a reduced quality of life for a significant number of respondents. It is confirmed that respondents' welfare is negatively influenced by a lack of funding and weak development of social services. It is not proven that the long-term carer's allowance is a comprehensible benefit increasing the carers' quality of life providing enough motivation to care. This sickness insurance benefit is intended primarily for a temporary lack of self-sufficiency, with the prospect of future improvement. Long-term or permanent lack of self-sufficiency and the related care must be secured by social support and assistance mechanisms, including respite care, and ought to be funded outside the framework of sickness insurance.

Suggested Citation

  • Vladimír Barák & Vojtěch Krebs & Helena Mitwallyová, 2022. "Support for Informal Carers: Has the New Benefit Improved Their Ability to Care?," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2022(1), pages 51-76.
    • Handle: RePEc:prg:jnlpol:v:2022:y:2022:i:1:id:1339:p:51-76
    DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.1339
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://polek.vse.cz/doi/10.18267/j.polek.1339.html
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: http://polek.vse.cz/doi/10.18267/j.polek.1339.pdf
    Download Restriction: free of charge
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.18267/j.polek.1339?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Schneider, Anne & Ingram, Helen, 1993. "Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(2), pages 334-347, June.
    2. Monica Eriksson & Mia M. T. Wennerberg & Solveig M. Lundgren & Ella Danielson, 2017. "“Self-Employed” in Caregivinghood: The Contribution of Swedish Informal Caregivers’ Environmental and Contextual Resistance Resources and Deficits," Societies, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-19, July.
    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. Maddison, Jonathan & Watts, Richard, 2011. "The technological fix as a frame in media debates about tailpipe emissions," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 294-303.
    2. Fritz Sager & Yvan Rielle, 2013. "Sorting through the garbage can: under what conditions do governments adopt policy programs?," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 46(1), pages 1-21, March.
    3. Bruch, Sarah K. & van der Naald, Joseph & Gornick, Janet C., 2022. "Poverty Reduction through Federal and State Policy Mechanisms: Variation Over Time and Across the U.S. States," SocArXiv jz5xp, Center for Open Science.
    4. Frank R. Baumgartner & Christine Mahoney, 2008. "Forum Section: The Two Faces of Framing," European Union Politics, , vol. 9(3), pages 435-449, September.
    5. Yao Zhu & Shousheng Chai & Jieqi Chen & Ian Phau, 2024. "How was rural tourism developed in China? Examining the impact of China’s evolving rural tourism policies," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 26(11), pages 28945-28969, November.
    6. Sarah K. Bruch & Janet C. Gornick & Joseph van der Naald, 2020. "Geographic Inequality in Social Provision: Variation across the US States," NBER Chapters, in: Measuring Distribution and Mobility of Income and Wealth, pages 499-527, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Giliberto Capano & Andrea Lippi, 2017. "How policy instruments are chosen: patterns of decision makers’ choices," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 50(2), pages 269-293, June.
    8. Thu T. Nguyen & Weijun Yu & Junaid S. Merchant & Shaniece Criss & Chris J. Kennedy & Heran Mane & Krishik N. Gowda & Melanie Kim & Ritu Belani & Caitlin F. Blanco & Manvitha Kalachagari & Xiaohe Yue &, 2023. "Examining Exposure to Messaging, Content, and Hate Speech from Partisan News Social Media Posts on Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-13, February.
    9. Momi Dahan, 2023. "Social Construction And The Progressivity Of Local Tax Relief," Israel Economic Review, Bank of Israel, vol. 21(1), pages 1-33, March.
    10. Daniel Béland & Alex Jingwei He & M Ramesh, 2022. "COVID-19, crisis responses, and public policies: from the persistence of inequalities to the importance of policy design [The impact of COVID-19 on gender equality]," Policy and Society, Darryl S. Jarvis and M. Ramesh, vol. 41(2), pages 187-198.
    11. Annie Everett & Kelly Rosinger & Dominique J. Baker & Hyung-Jung Kim & Robert Kelchen & Justin C. Ortagus, 2024. "Tennessee’s Burden: How Students Apply for State Financial Aid within One Southern State," Research in Higher Education, Springer;Association for Institutional Research, vol. 65(8), pages 1826-1852, December.
    12. Claire A. Dunlop & Martino Maggetti & Claudio M. Radaelli & Duncan Russel, 2012. "The many uses of regulatory impact assessment: A meta‐analysis of EU and UK cases," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 23-45, March.
    13. Matt Guardino & Suzanne Mettler, 2020. "Revealing the “Hidden welfare state†: How policy information influences public attitudes about tax expenditures," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 3(1).
    14. Christopher Weible & David Carter, 2015. "The composition of policy change: comparing Colorado’s 1977 and 2006 smoking bans," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(2), pages 207-231, June.
    15. Janota, Jessica J. & Broussard, Shorna R., 2008. "Examining private forest policy preferences," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 89-97, January.
    16. Davis Bivens, Nicola & Miller, DeMond Shondell, 2022. "Policy for temporary crisis or sustained structural change in an age of disasters, crises, and pandemics," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 9(3), pages 1-19, November.
    17. Megan M. Reynolds & Ashley M. Fox & Yvette Young, 2021. "State‐level social safety nets for families coping with job loss," Poverty & Public Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(2), pages 121-138, June.
    18. Jelínková Marie, 2019. "A Refugee Crisis Without Refugees: Policy and media discourse on refugees in the Czech Republic and its implications," Central European Journal of Public Policy, Sciendo, vol. 13(1), pages 33-45, June.
    19. Lorenz Kammermann & Karin Ingold, 2019. "Going beyond technocratic and democratic principles: stakeholder acceptance of instruments in Swiss energy policy," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(1), pages 43-65, March.
    20. Jan-Peter Voß & Adrian Smith & John Grin, 2009. "Designing long-term policy: rethinking transition management," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 42(4), pages 275-302, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Informal care; social policy; benefit; Czech Republic; de-institutionalisation; H55; I3; J11;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • H55 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Social Security and Public Pensions
    • I3 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty
    • J11 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Demographic Trends, Macroeconomic Effects, and Forecasts

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:prg:jnlpol:v:2022:y:2022:i:1:id:1339:p:51-76. 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: Stanislav Vojir (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/uevsecz.html .

    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.