Citation

Rummery K. Int. J. Sociol. Soc. Policy 2023; 43(1/2): 33-47.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2023, Emerald Group Publishing)

DOI

10.1108/IJSSP-09-2021-0229

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

PURPOSE There are clear theoretical, policy and practice tensions in conceptualising social or long-term care as a "right": an enforceable choice. The purpose of this article is to address the following questions: Do disabled and older citizens have the right to long-term care? What do these rights look like under different care regimes? Do citizens have the right or duty to *provide* long-term care? It is already known that both formal and informal care across all welfare contexts is mainly provided by women and that this has serious implications for gender equality.

DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH In this article, the author takes a conceptual approach to examining the comparative evidence from developed welfare states with formal long-term care provision and the different models of care, to challenge feminist care theory from the perspective of those living in care poverty (i.e. with insufficient access to long-term care and support to meet their citizenship rights).

FINDINGS Drawing on her own comparative research on models of long-term and "personalised" care, the author finds that different models of state provision and different models of personalised care provide differential citizenship outcomes for carers and those needing care. The findings indicate that well-governed personalised long-term care provides the best outcomes in terms of balancing potentially conflicting citizenship claims and addressing care poverty.

ORIGINALITY/VALUE The author develops new approaches to care theory based on citizenship and care poverty that have not been published elsewhere, drawing on models that she developed herself.

Language: en