Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:03:59.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Care Ideals in the Netherlands: Shifts between 2002 and 2011

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2015

Thijs van den Broek ,
Pearl A. Dykstra  and
Romke J. van der Veen
Thijs van den Broek*
Affiliation:
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Department of Sociology, The Netherlands
Pearl A. Dykstra
Affiliation:
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Department of Sociology, The Netherlands
Romke J. van der Veen
Affiliation:
Erasmus University Rotterdam, Department of Sociology, The Netherlands
*
†La correspondance et les demandes de tirés-à-part doivent être adressées à: / Correspondence and requests for offprints should be sent to: Thijs van den Broek, Ph.D. Erasmus University Rotterdam Department of Sociology PO Box 1738 Rotterdam 3000 DR Netherlands (broek@fsw.eur.nl)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Our study’s premise was that normative care beliefs can inform the current care policy debate. We conducted latent class regression analyses on two waves of Netherlands Kinship Panel Study data (n = 4,163) to distinguish care ideals that captured multiple dimensions of normative care beliefs simultaneously. We also assessed how these care ideals have shifted in the early twenty-first century. We distinguished four care ideals: warm-modern (family and state jointly responsible for caring, egalitarian gender roles), cold-modern (large state responsibility, restricted family responsibility, egalitarian gender roles), traditional (restricted state responsibility, large family responsibility, moderately traditional gender roles), and cold-traditional (large state responsibility, restricted family responsibility, traditional gender roles). Between 2002 and 2011, there has been a shift away from warm-modern care ideals and towards cold-modern care ideals. This is remarkable, because Dutch policy makers have increasingly encouraged family members to take on an active role in caring for dependent relatives.

Résumé

La prémisse de notre étude était que les croyances au sujet des soins normatives peuvent éclairer le débat actuel sur la politique de soins. Nous avons réalisé des analyses impliquant la régression de classe latente sur deux vagues de données (n = 4 163) de la Netherlands Kinship Panel Study parenté pour distinguer les idéaux pour les soins qui ont capturé simultanément des dimensions multiples de croyances de soins normatifs. Nous avons également évalué comment ces idéaux en matière de soins ont changé au début du 21ième siècle. Nous avons distingué quatre idéaux pour les soins: chauds-modernes (la famille et l'État conjointement responsables de soins, rôles égalitaires des sexes); froids-modernes (grande responsabilité de l'État, responsabilité de la famille restreinte, rôles égalitaires des sexes); traditionnels (responsabilité limitée de l'État, grande responsabilité de la famille, rôles des sexes modérément traditionnels); et froids-traditionnels (grande responsabilité de l'État, responsabilité de la famille restreinte, rôles des sexes traditionnels). De 2002 à 2011 il y a eu un éloignement des idéaux de soins chauds-modernes envers les idéaux de soins froids-modernes. Ceci est remarquable, parce que les décideurs néerlandais ont de plus en plus encouragé les membres de famille à prendre un rôle actif dans les soins aux parents dépendants.

Keywords

agingde-familializationfamily obligationslong-term careNetherlands Kinship Panel Studyre-familializationvieillissmentdéfamilialisationdevoirs familialessoins de longue duréeNetherlands Kinship Panel Studyréfamilialisation
Type
Article
Information
Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement , Volume 34 , Special Issue 3 , September 2015 , pp. 268 - 281
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association on Gerontology 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aronson, J. (1990). Women’s perspectives on informal care of the elderly: Public ideology and personal experience of giving and receiving care. Ageing and Society, 10(1), 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berecki-Gisolf, J., Lucke, J., Hockey, R., & Dobson, A. (2008). Transitions into informal caregiving and out of paid employment of women in their 50s. Social Science & Medicine, 67(1), 122–127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bolck, A., Croon, M., & Hagenaars, J. (2004). Estimating latent structure models with categorical variables: One-step versus three-step estimators. Political Analysis, 12(1), 3–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brandt, M., Haberkern, K., & Szydlik, M. (2009). Intergenerational help and care in Europe. European Sociological Review, 25(5), 581–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cahill, E., Lewis, L. M., Barg, F. K., & Bogner, H. R. (2009). “You don’t want to burden them”: Older adults’ views on family involvement in care. Journal of Family Nursing, 15(3), 295–317.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chappell, N. L. (1993). Implications of shifting health care policy for caregiving in Canada. Journal of Aging and Social Policy, 5(1–2), 39–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centrum Indicatiestelling Zorg (CIZ). (2012). CIZ indicatiewijzer: Toelichting op beleidsregels indicatiestelling AWBZ 2012 zoals vastgesteld door het ministerie van VWS [CIZ adjudication: Information on the policy guidelines AWBZ 2012 as established by the ministry of VWS]. Driebergen: Author.Google Scholar
Cohen, C. A., Colantonio, A., & Vernich, L. (2002). Positive aspects of caregiving: Rounding out the caregiver experience. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 17(2), 184–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Daatland, S. O., & Herlofson, K. (2003). ‘Lost solidarity’ or ‘changed solidarity’: A comparative European view of normative family solidarity. Ageing and Society, 23(5), 537–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daatland, S. O., Herlofson, K., & Lima, I. A. (2011). Balancing generations: On the strength and character of family norms in the west and east of Europe. Ageing and Society, 31(7), 1159–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deeming, C., & Keen, J. (2003). A fair deal for care in old age? Public attitudes towards the funding of long term care. Policy and Politics, 31(4), 431–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Klerk, M., de Boer, A., Kooiker, S., Plaisier, I., & Schyns, P. (Eds.). (2014). Hulp geboden: Een verkenning van de mogelijkheden en grenzen van (meer) informele hulp [Help needed: An exploration of the possibilities for and limits to (more) informal support]. The Hague: SCP The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
Dempster, A. P., Laird, N. M., & Rubin, D. B. (1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39(1), 1–38.Google Scholar
Dykstra, P. A., & Fokkema, T. (2012). Norms of filial obligation in the Netherlands, Population, 67(1), 97–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dykstra, P. A., Kalmijn, M., Knijn, T. C. M., Komter, A. E., Liefbroer, A. C., & Mulder, C. H. (2005). Codebook of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study: A multi-actor, multi-method panel study on solidarity in family relationships, wave 1, version 1. The Hague: Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute.Google Scholar
European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). (2013). Gender equality index: Country profiles. Vilnius: Author.Google Scholar
Elder, G. H. (1994). Time, human agency and social change: Perspectives on the life course. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 4–15.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finch, J., & Mason, J. (1991). Obligations of kinship in contemporary Britain: Is there normative agreement? The British Journal of Sociology, 42(3), 345–367.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fonseca, J. R. S. (2013). Clustering in the field of social sciences: That is your choice. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16(5), 403–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganong, L. H., & Coleman, M. (1999). Changing families, changing responsibilities: Family obligations following divorce and remarriage. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Gans, D., & Silverstein, M. (2006). Norms of filial responsibility for aging parents across time and generations. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 961–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, V. L. (1983). Substitution between formally and informally provided care for the impaired elderly in the community. Medical Care, 21(6), 609–619.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hagenaars, J. A., & Halman, L. C. (1989). Searching for ideal types: The potentialities of latent class analysis. European Sociological Review, 5(1), 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hagestad, G. O., & Neugarten, B. L. (1985). Age and the life course. In Binstock, R. H., & Shanas, E. (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the social sciences (pp. 35–61). New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.Google Scholar
Havenaar, R. (2006). Twee soorten conservatism [Two sorts of conservatism]. Amsterdam: Vossius.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herlofson, K., Hagestad, G., Slagsvold, B., & Sørensen, A. (2011). Multilinks deliverable 4.3: Intergenerational family responsibility in Europe . Retrieved online 14 March 2014 from: http://www.multilinks-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/herlofson_deliverable1.pdf Google Scholar
Hochschild, A. R. (1994). The commercial spirit of intimate life and the abduction of feminism: Signs from women’s advice books. Theory, Culture, and Society, 11(2), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hochschild, A. R. (1995). The culture of politics: Traditional, postmodern, cold-modern, and warm-modern ideals of care. Social Politics, 2(3), 331–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, D. P., Eggebeen, D. J., & Clogg, C. C. (1993). The structure of intergenerational exchanges in American families. American Journal of Sociology, 98(6), 1428–1458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Janssen, B., & Portegijs, W. (2011). Betaalde arbeid [Paid employment]. In Merens, A., van den Brakel, M., Hartgers, M., & Hermans, M. (Eds.), Emancipatiemonitor 2010 (pp. 72–107). The Hague: SCP The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
Kotsadam, A. (2011). Does informal eldercare impede women’s employment? The case of European welfare states. Feminist Economics, 17(2), 12269–282 4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kremer, M. (2006). The politics of ideals of care: Danish and Flemish child care policy compared. Social Politics, 13(2), 261–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, Y., Tang, F., Kim, K. H., & Albert, S. M. (2015). Exploring gender differences in the relationships between eldercare and labour force participation. Canadian Journal on Aging/La Revue canadienne du vieillissement, 34(1), 14–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Linzer, D. A., & Lewis, J. B. (2010). poLCA: An R package for polytomous variable latent class analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 42, 1–29.Google Scholar
Lister, R. (1994). “She has other duties” – Women, citizenship and social security. In Baldwin, S., & Falkingham, J. (Eds.), Social security and social change: New challenges to the Beveridge model (pp. 31–44). New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
Litwak, E. (1985). Helping the elderly: The complementary roles of informal networks and formal systems. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Lyotard, J. (1979). The postmodern condition. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Mau, S. (2004). Welfare regimes and the norms of social exchange. Current Sociology, 52(1), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCutcheon, A. L. (1987). Latent class analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLachlan, G. J., & Krishnan, T. (1997). The EM algorithm and extensions. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Merz, E.-M., Dykstra, P. A., Hogerbrugge, M. J. A., Komter, A. E., Liefbroer, A. C., & Mulder, C. H. (2012). Codebook of the Netherlands Kinship Panel Study: A multi-actor, multi-method panel study on solidarity in family relationships, wave 3, version 1. The Hague: Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute.Google Scholar
Morée, M., van der Zee, B., & Struijs, A. J. (2007). Formalisering van informele zorg. Over de rol van “gebruikelijke zorg” bij toekenning van professionele zorg [Formalization of informal care: On the role of “usual care” in adjudicating professional care]. The Hague: CEG The Netherlands Centre for Ethics and Health.Google Scholar
Mot, E. (2010). CPB document no. 204. The Dutch system of long-term care. The Hague: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.Google Scholar
OECD. (2011). Help wanted? Providing and paying for long-term care. Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Österle, A., & Rothgang, H. (2010). Long-term care. In Castles, F. G., Leibfried, S., Lewis, J., Obinger, H., & Pierson, C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the welfare state (pp. 378–390). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pavalko, E. K., & Artis, J. E. (1997). Women's caregiving and paid work: Causal relationships in late midlife. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 52(4), 170–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pavolini, E., & Ranci, C. (2008). Restructuring the welfare state: Reforms in long-term care in Western European countries. Journal of European Social Policy, 18(3), 246–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pfau-Effinger, B. (1998). Gender cultures and the gender arrangement. A theoretical framework for cross-national research. Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 11(2), 147–166.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (1996). The new politics of the welfare state. World Politics, 48(2), 143–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poortman, A. R., & van Tilburg, T. (2005). Past experiences and older adults’ attitudes: A lifecourse perspective. Ageing and Society, 25(1), 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raven, J., Achterberg, P., van der Veen, R., & Yerkes, M. (2011). An institutional embeddedness of welfare opinions? The link between public opinion and social policy in the Netherlands (1970–2004). Journal of Social Policy, 40(2), 369–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinhard, S. C., Levine, C., & Samis, S. (2012). Home alone: Family caregivers providing complex chronic care. Washington, D.C.: AARP Public Policy Institute.Google Scholar
Saraceno, C. (2010). Social inequalities in facing old-age dependency: A bi-generational perspective. Journal of European Social Policy, 20(1), 32–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Saraceno, C., & Keck, W. (2011). Towards an integrated approach for the analysis of gender equity in policies supporting paid work and care responsibilities. Demographic Research, 25(11), 371–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenk, N. (2013). Multiple Links: Public policy, family exchanges, well-being and policy endorsement. Rotterdam: Dissertation Erasmus University.Google Scholar
Schlesinger, M. (2012). Crowding out: Multiple manifestations, muddled meanings. Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law, 37(5), 851–864.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schmid, T., Brandt, M., & Haberkern, K. (2012). Gendered support to older parents: Do welfare states matter? European Journal of Ageing, 9(1), 39–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sims-Gould, J., & Martin-Matthews, A. (2010). We share the care: Family caregivers’ experiences of their older relative receiving home support services. Health and Social Care in the Community, 18(4), 415–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smits, C. H. M., van den Beld, H. K., Aartsen, M. J., & Schroots, J. J. F. (2014). Aging in the Netherlands: State of the art and science. The Gerontologist, 54(3), 335–343.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Svallfors, S. (2010a). Public attitudes. In Castles, F. G., Leibfried, S., Lewis, J., Obinger, H., & Pierson, C. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the welfare state (pp. 241–251). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Svallfors, S. (2010b). Policy feedback, generational replacement, and attitudes to state intervention: Eastern and Western Germany, 1990–2006. European Political Science Review, 2(1), 119–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tuynman, M., & Marangos, A. M. (2010). Gemeentelijk Wmo-beleid op de negen prestatievelden [Municipal Social Support Act policy in nine performance areas]. In de Klerk, M., Gilsling, R., & Timmermans, J. (Eds.), Op weg met de Wmo. Evaluatie van de Wet maatschappelijke ondersteuning 2007–2009 (pp. 69–100). The Hague: SCP The Netherlands Institute for Social Research.Google Scholar
van den Broek, T. (2013). Formalization of informal care in the Netherlands: Cost-containment or gendered cost redistribution? International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics, 6(2), 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Veen, R., Achterberg, P., & Raven, J. (2012). Contested solidarity. Risk perception and the changing nature of the welfare state. In van der Veen, R., Yerkes, M., & Achterberg, P. (Eds.), The transformation of solidarity. Changing risks and the future of the welfare state (pp. 31–48). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Doorne-Huiskes, A., & Schippers, J. (2010). Vrouwen op de arbeidsmarkt: Een succesvolle worsteling [Women on the labour market: A successful struggle]. Tijdschrift voor Arbeidsvraagstukken, 26, 400–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Gaalen, R. I., & Dykstra, P. A. (2006). Solidarity and conflict between adult children and parents: A latent class analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 68(4), 947–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Hooren, F., & Becker, U. (2012). One welfare state, two care regimes: Understanding developments in child and elderly care policies in the Netherlands. Social Policy and Administration, 46(1), 83–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vlasblom, J. D., & Schippers, J. J. (2004). Increases in female labour force participation in Europe: Similarities and differences. European Journal of Population, 20(4), 375–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wielink, G., Huijsman, R., & McDonnell, J. (1997). Preferences for care. A study of the elders living independently in the Netherlands. Research on Aging, 19(2), 174–198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wobma, E. (2011). Mannen en vrouwen in Nederland. [Men and women in the Netherlands]. Bevolkingstrends – Statistisch kwartaalblad over de demografie van Nederland, 59, 37–42.Google Scholar