WELFARE STATE IDEOLOGIES AND LONG-TERM CARE REGIMES: CHALLENGES OF WORKING AGE CARERS WITH DEPENDENT RELATIVES IN MACEDONIA

Maja Gerovska Mitev

Suzana Bornarova

Сажетак

The aim of the paper is twofold: to analyse to what extent the concept of “reconciliation between professional and private life” fits into the tradition and scope of the long-term care (LTC) regimes in Europe, as well as to provide insight into the challenges of working age carers in Macedonia. The initial hypothesis of the paper is to identify whether the lack of support towards carers in some of the European long-term care regimes is associated with the tradition and/or welfare ideology in which LTC systems were created. For that purpose, a com­parative analysis will be undertaken of LTC schemes in four different welfare state regimes (Esping-Andersen, 1990) i.e. in Sweden, Germa­ny, UK and Italy. The analysis will take into consideration the founding principles of the LTC regimes, welfare ideology as well as the scope of support provided to carers in the respective countries. The second part of the paper will provide insight into challenges faced by working age carers with dependent relatives in Macedonia. This country case study will provide insight into the challenges faced by the caregivers due to lack of balance between the overall package of social protection, health and employment measures. Hence, this part will try to support the evidence that in countries where labour market support of the carers’ is marginalized, carers’ are more vulnerable cat­egory, especially in relation to employment and decent living standards.

Референце

1. Anttonen A. and Sipilä J., “European Social Care Services: Is It Possible To Iden­tify Models?” Journal of European Social Policy, 6(2), 1996, pp. 87-100.
2. Bäcker G., ESPN Thematic Report on work-life balance measures for persons of working age with dependent relatives Germany, European Commission, Brussels, 2016.
3. Bettio F. and Plantenga J., “Comparing care regimes in Europe”, Feminist Eco­nomics, 10(1), 2004, pp. 85-113.
4. Bouget D., Spasova S. and Vanhercke B., Work-life balance measures for persons of working age with dependent relatives in Europe A Study of National Poli­cies, Brussels: European Commission, Brussels, 2016.
5. Dimitrievska V., “The Model of Long-Term Care in R. Macedonia”, Journal of Social Policy, Year 3, No. 5, 2010, pp. 468-484.
6. Esping-Andersen G., The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton Univer­sity Press, Princeton, 1990.
7. ESE, The cost of unpaid care for dependent adults, Association for Emancipation, Solidarity and Equality of Women ESE, Skopje, 2016.
8. Esping-Andersen et al., Why We Need a New Welfare State, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002.
9. Gerovska Mitev M., ESPN Thematic Report on work-life balance measures for persons of working age with dependent relatives in Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, European Commission, Brussels, 2016.
10. Glendinning C., ESPN Thematic Report on work-life balance measures for persons of working age with dependent relatives in UK, European Commission, Brus­sels, 2016.
11. Hiilamo H. and Kangas O., “Trap for women or freedom to choose? The struggle over cash for child care schemes in Finland and Sweden”, Journal of Social Policy, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2009, pp. 457-475.
12. Jessoula M., Pavolini E. and Strati F., ESPN Thematic Report on work-life balance measures for persons of working age with dependent relatives in UK, European Commission, Brussels, 2016.
13. Karlsson M., Iversen T. and Oien H., Scandinavian Long-Term Care Financing, Working Paper 2010:2, University of Oslo, Health Economics Research Programme, Oslo, 2010, Internet, http://www.med.uio.no/helsam/forskning/nettverk/hero/publikasjoner/skriftserie/2010/2010_2.pdf, 24/04/2016
14. Kraus M., Czypionka T., Riedel M., Mot E. and Willemé P., How European Na­tions Care For Their Elderly A New Typology Of Long-Term Care, Enepri Policy Brief, No. 7 July 2011.
15. Lamura G., Dimensions of future social service provision in the ageing societies of Europe, Paper presented at the VI. European Congress of Gerontology and Geriatrics, St. Petersburg, Russia, 2007.
16. Lamura G., Mnich E., Nolan M., Wojszel B., Krevers B., Mestheneos L. and Dohner H., “Family Carers’ Experiences Using Support Services in Europe: Empirical Evidence From the EUROFAMCARE Study”, The Gerontologist, Vol. 48, No. 6, 2008, pp. 752-771.
17. Leichsenring K., Billings J. and Nies (eds.), Long-term care in Europe: Improv­ing Policy and Practice, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.
18. Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, Social protection rights and services, Inter­net, http://www.mtsp.gov.mk/uslugi-i-prava.nspx, 04/05/2016.
19. Nies H., Leichsenring K. and Mak S., ”The emerging identity of Long-Term Care systems in Europe”, In: Long-Term Care in Europe. Improving policy and practice (eds. Leichsenring K., Billing J., and Nies H.), Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan, 2013, pp. 19-41.
20. Labour Law, Official Gazette of the RM, 167.
21. Schön P., Johansson L., ESPN Thematic Report on Work-life balance measures for persons of working age with dependent relatives in Sweden A study of national policies. European Commission, Brussels, 2016.
22. Schulmann K. and Leichsenring K., Social support and long-term care in EU care regimes, European Commission’s Seventh Framework Programme FP7-SSH-2012-1/No 320333, 2014, Internet, www.mopact.group.shef.ac.uk, 05/04/2016
23. Simonazzi A., “Care regimes and national employment models”, Cambridge Jour­nal of Economics, 33(2), 2009, pg. 211-232.
24. State Statistical Office, Labour Force Survey 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, State Statis­tical Office, Skopje.
25. State Statistical Office, Social Welfare for Children, Juveniles and Adults, State Statistical Office, Skopje, 2015.