A Comparative Analysis of Personalisation: Balancing an Ethic of Care with User Empowerment

被引:24
作者
Rummery, Kirstein [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Stirling, Dept Appl Social Sci, Colin Bell Bldg, Stirling FK7 9JG, Scotland
关键词
Ethic of Care; Personalisation; Older People;
D O I
10.1080/17496535.2011.571064
中图分类号
C916 [社会工作、社会管理、社会规划];
学科分类号
1204 ;
摘要
Developments in the provision of care and support services for disabled and older people across developed welfare states have led to the expansion of personalisation (sometimes called cash-for-care, direct payments, care payments, etc.) schemes, whereby cash is paid in substitute for care services and support. Although these schemes vary considerably in their scope and operation (sometimes paying carers directly, sometimes enabling disabled and older people to act as direct employers, sometimes mixing paid and unpaid care), they share the characteristics of commodifying care and support services and will have a potentially profound impact on the relationship between individuals, families, communities and the welfare state. Although the schemes have been evaluated within their own national contexts, little work has been done so far to explore the theoretical implications of their development and extension, particularly from an ethics of care perspective. This paper intends to fill that theoretical gap by drawing on comparative evidence from several schemes across different national contexts to develop an analysis which draws on feminist theory and an ethics of care approach to examine (a) the gendered policy outcomes and impact of such schemes; (b) a feminist analysis of the governance implications of personalisation; (c) the implications for the gendered division of work, particularly between paid and unpaid care work and between different groups of paid and unpaid carers; (d) an ethics of care analysis of the impact of personalisation over the lifecourse of disabled and older people, and carers; and (e) a discussion of the relationship between commodification, empowerment, citizenship and choice drawing on the work of care ethicists. It will draw conclusions about the outcomes of a range of types of personalisation schemes and thus have implications for theory, policy and practice.
引用
收藏
页码:138 / 152
页数:15
相关论文
共 39 条
[1]   Comparing care regimes in Europe [J].
Bettio, F ;
Plantenga, J .
FEMINIST ECONOMICS, 2004, 10 (01) :85-113
[2]  
Bresse S., 2004, PERSONNEL SERVICES A
[3]  
Brisenden S., 1986, DISABILITY HANDICAP, V1, P173, DOI [10.1080/02674648666780171, DOI 10.1080/02674648666780171]
[4]  
Ellis Kathryn., 2004, ETHICS WELFARE HUMAN, P29
[5]   Increasing user choice or privatizing risk? The antinomies of personalization [J].
Ferguson, Iain .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK, 2007, 37 (03) :387-403
[6]  
Fisher B., 1991, CIRCLES CARE WORK ID, P35
[7]   AFTER THE FAMILY WAGE - GENDER EQUITY AND THE WELFARE-STATE [J].
FRASER, N .
POLITICAL THEORY, 1994, 22 (04) :591-618
[8]   Challenging the need for gratitude - Comparisons between paid and unpaid care for disabled people [J].
Galvin, R .
JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY, 2004, 40 (02) :137-155
[9]  
Gilligan C., 1982, DIFFERENT VOICE PSYC
[10]  
Gori G., 2007, CASH CARE DEV WELFAR, P60