Thematic Panels are parallel sessions hosted by Panels’ convenors that, within the general conference theme, address a specific topic. Thematic Panels are parallel sessions hosted by Panels’ convenors that, within the general conference theme, address a specific topic.

For up to date information, click here to view the Programme and Book of Abstracts.

List of Thematic Panels:

1. Family transitions: rethinking care in the face of changing household constellations
2. (Out of) Care in Crisis – Analyses and activist initiatives in the post-pandemic period
3. Digital Technologies and Care in Crisis Contexts: Re-drawing Boundaries
4. Pushing the boundaries of ECEC: New actors, practices, and technologies
5. Care, surveillance and vulnerability: boundaries and limits of care
   
6. Boundaries of inclusion and benefits? Assessing the generosity of long-term care systems worldwide
7. Whole system reform in social care
8. Social care and disabled people: Geographical and social boundaries
9. Inequalities and care needs
10. The Care-Migration Systems Nexus: De-centring ‘global north’ perspectives
11. Transforming Masculinity and Care: gendered boundaries and carers’ lives in transition
12. Ageing, disability, care and (inter-)dependency
13.  Pathways into and across care
14. TBC
15. Exploring innovative collective care practices in housing and communities
16. Boundaries of belonging in older people’s care networks
17. Public administration reforms in long-term care service organisation: de-bureaucratizing, democratising, and improving labour conditions.
18. Labour market, working conditions and employment relations in the care sector: old and new challenges and new solutions in crisis contexts
19. Commercial actors and care entrepreneurs in elderly care markets
20. The Role of Cultural Ideas in the Development of Childcare Policies and Long-Term Care Policies 
    
21. TBC
22. TBC
23. ‘Educating communities’ in times of multiple crises. Pursuing social inclusion, equal opportunities and contrast to (educational) poverty of children
24. Access barriers to early childhood education and care (ECEC): spatial, temporal and structural challenges

Convenors- 

Ingela Naumann, University of Edinburgh & University of Fribourg

ECEC provision has expanded considerably in recent decades across many countries. This expansion is generally seen as policy success with respect to national social investment aims, the support of children’s development and parents’ labour market participation. However, aggregate data on ECEC participation rates hides many forms of access inequalities: in many countries, there exist geographical gaps in provision particularly with respect to rural areas or disadvantaged urban areas. We may also find uneven regional or local distributions of different types of ECEC – of full-time or part-time provision, public or private settings (often operating with different regulatory frameworks and fees structures), the availability of ECEC centres or family-based childminding services and so forth. This uneven availability of different ECEC services narrows down choices for families and creates take-up and access barriers particularly with respect to employment constraints and specific needs of families (e.g. around disability). Furthermore, ECEC system design, admission procedures and timetables can create additional access barriers and logistical challenges for families (e.g. where children of different ages in the household attend different types of settings). Lastly, we know that children from some groups in society are less likely to attend formal ECEC settings and that spatial and structural access challenges are compounded by ethnic and cultural barriers. 

This session thus speaks to the conference theme of exploring geographical, social and administrative boundaries that shape ECEC access and that may have unequal effects on individual and family wellbeing, household finances and opportunities.

We invite contributions from different disciplines (social policy, sociology, geography, ethnography, economics etc.) that examine diverse aspects of access barriers to formal ECEC provision in different national contexts as well as in international comparison. Whilst we expect papers to be grounded in empirical studies, we also welcome conceptual contributions with a focus on the dynamics and mechanisms of ECEC systems with respect to ECEC availability and access inequality. We particularly welcome papers employing innovative methods in capturing different dimensions of ECEC access barriers, including new tools for data visualisation.

Convenors- 

Stefania Sabatinelli, Department of Architecture and Urban Studies (DAStU), Politecnico di Milano

The multiple crises brought about by the covid-19 pandemic, the manifold war and humanitarian crises, the eco-social transition and the energy crises have severe impacts, as well as long-term implications, for children, for their families as well as at societal level. At the same time, recent and current initiatives, like the European NextGenerationEU plan and the Child Guarantee program, have conveyed a renewed attention around the conditions of children and new resources to pursue their rights and wellbeing. 

The ‘educating communities’ – the diversified networks of local actors working with and for children – can play a fundamental role in pursuing inclusion of children and their families, their equal opportunities to access high quality ECEC, out-of-school-hours and other services, as well as in preventing and contrasting children’s poverty and educational poverty. 

Following the challenges posed by the intertwined abovementioned crises, several innovations have been observed both in the contents and approaches of the interventions developed, in the public-private partnerships or networks underpinning them, and/or in the planning strategies and in the multi-level governance arrangements fostering such interventions.

The panel welcomes papers reflecting on both challenges and innovations for the pursue of children’s rights and wellbeing, in one specific context or comparing more than one national or regional/local case. Especially welcome are papers that combine theoretical reflections and empirical evidence. 

Details TBC

Details TBC

Convenors-

Birgit Pfau-Effinger, Christopher Grages, Thurid Eggers

In the last decades, welfare state policies towards childcare and long-term care (LTC) for older people have experienced fundamental reforms in many countries. They were often based on the extension of social rights and publicly funded infrastructure (Daly & Ferragina 2021; Ranci & Pavolini, 2015). Also, the ways in which welfare state institutions are framing parental childcare and LTC by family members have changed (Eggers et al. 2021; Frericks et al. 2014). Policy reforms also included the strengthening of political support for the privatization and marketization of care (Brennan et al. 2011), and there are new approaches based on active ageing, re-ablement and rehabilitation (Aspinal et al. 2016). More recently, as a consequence of the need for a lockdown of public childcare in the COVID-19 pandemic, many welfare states modified existing policy instruments or introduced new ones in order to support parental childcare at home and long-term care by family members (Blum & Dobrotić 2021). 

It seems that cultural ideas were among the main drivers of these diverse developments. According to theorizing in comparative welfare state research, cultural ideas are framing the ways in which the political actors define and perceive the problems and possible solutions (Béland 2009; Pfau-Effinger 2005). In the development of family policies and long-term care, the roles of ideas and ideational change are particularly relevant. However, these cultural ideas are not always coherent; they may be contradictory and contested between social and political actors. It is common that in postindustrial societies, more traditional and diverse innovative cultural ideas about the “ideal” gender division of labor and the “ideal” ways to organize the provision of childcare and LTC for older people compete and are re-negotiated (Pfau-Effinger 2004). 

The aim of this thematic panel is to understand the role of cultural ideas for the development and for cross-national differences of childcare policies and LTC policies. It also aims to analyse  the complex mechanisms and processes on which cultural ideas enter childcare and LTC policies. In addition, it also addresses the role of cultural values and attitudes in the population and in public discourses for the development and cross-national differences in childcare policies and LTC policies.  

References 

Aspinal, F.; Glasby, J.; Rostgaard, T.; Tuntland, H.; Westendorp, R.G.J. (2016) “New horizons: Reablement – supporting older people towards independence”. Age and Ageing, 45, 5: 574–578.

Béland, D. 2009. Ideas, institutions, and policy change. Journal of European Public Policy 16 (5): 701–718.

Blum, S.; Dobrotić, I. (2021) “Childcare-policy responses in the COVID-19 pandemic: Unpacking cross-country variation”, European Societies, 23, 1: 545-563.

Brennan, D.; Cass, B.: Himmelweit, S.; and Szebehely, M. (2012) “Marketisation of care – Rationales and consequences in Nordic and liberal care regimes”. Journal of European Social Policy 22(4): 377–391.

Daly, M.; Ferragina, E. (2018). “Family policy in high-income countries: five decades of development”, Journal of European Social Policy, 28, no 3: 255-270.

Eggers, T.; Grages, C.; Pfau-Effinger, B.; Och, R. (2020) “Re-conceptualising the relation-ship between de-familialisation and familialisation and the implications for gender equality – the case of long-term care policies for older people”, Ageing & Society, 40, 4: 869-895.

Frericks, P., Jensen, P.H. & Pfau-Effinger, B. (2014), Social rights and employment rights related to family care: Family care regimes in Europe, Journal of Aging Studies 29: 66-77.

Pfau-Effinger, B. (2004). Development of Culture, Welfare States and Women’s Employment in Europe. Routledge (e-book 2017). 

Pfau-Effinger, B. (2005). Culture and Welfare State Policies: Reflections on a Complex Interrelation. Journal of Social Policy 34, 1: 1–18.

Ranci, C.; Pavolini, E. (2015). “Not all that glitters is gold: Long-term care reforms in the last two decades in Europe”. Journal of European Social Policy, 25, no. 3: 270-285.

Convenors-

Veronika Prieler and Mariusz Sapieha, Department of Anthropology, Amsterdam Institute for Social Science, Research (AISSR), University of Amsterdam

Formal long-term care services for the elderly used to be provided mainly by public institutions and/or private, often church-related, not-for-profit organisations. Over the last decades, demographic and societal changes have led to rising demand for elderly care. Many countries, however, expanded public services only hesitantly. Instead, cash-for-care schemes were introduced and new (transnational) care markets emerged. Private commercial actors play an important role in these transitions within the elderly care sector. Ranging from large transnational chains to one-person companies they, e.g., run residential care homes, assisted living projects, or home care services, offer specialized nursing care services, recruit care professionals, broker migrant live-in workers or connect people in need of care with care providers, often operating transnationally.

The session invites papers that deal with private commercial actors and their role in
developing and providing long-term care services for the elderly. We welcome submission
from researchers of all career stages that address but are not limited to the following
questions:
• Who are these commercial care entrepreneurs? What kind of narratives and
aspirations do they mobilize? What links are there to other business sectors such as,
e.g., investment, real estate, labor brokerage, or tourism?
• Which services do they provide and which (new) care solutions do they promote?
• How do private actors navigate national and supranational care-related policies and
regulations? How do they interact with public and not-for-profit actors?
• What does the implementation of corporate and business logics mean for the elderly
care sector, the working conditions, and the way care is experienced?
• How do regional, class-, or ethnicity-related inequalities come into play and which
boundaries are (re-)drawn with regard to accessibility of care services?

Convenors-

Stefano Neri, University of Milan and Emmanuele Pavolini, University of Macerata

Over the last decades in Europe, care services, such as ECEC and LTC services, have experienced significant changes, including long-term social and demographic trends, austerity in public finance especially in the aftermath of the Great Recession, as well as the Covid-19 pandemic. As a result, the structure of care service provision has significantly changed, strengthening trends toward privatisation and marketisation, although with relevant differences across European countries. Governments have tackled four contrasting tensions (a quadrilemma) concerning their ability: to provide and finance welfare services; to ensure universal coverage; to guarantee good service quality; and to safeguard decent and protected jobs. Labour issues are particularly important in the care sector: on the one hand, labour costs represent the main source of service expenditure; on the other hand, there is a relationship between job quality and service quality. Therefore, labour regulation, working conditions and employment relations have been put under considerable pressure, in order to make service provision sustainable in times of retrenchment. The Covid-19 emergency, which directly involved care services, and the current crisis triggered by the war in Ukraine, with its effects on public spending and government priorities, have further increased pressures on the care sector, calling for urgent responses to the evolving social problems in European countries.

The session calls for cross-country comparisons or single-country papers, which firstly investigate recent changes and current transitions in labour markets and working conditions in the care sector, in Europe. Secondly, it calls for papers focusing on the role of social actors and employment relations institutions, at national, local or EU level, in arranging new solutions and practices, which are able to limit the risk of worsening in pay and working conditions by managing the tensions described in the quadrilemma. Papers using qualitative or quantitative methods are both welcome.

Convenors-

David Palomera, Institute of Government and Public Policy, Autonomous University of Barcelona

Tine Rostgaard, Roskilde University and Stockholm University

There’s a shared understanding among academia and public officials that the combination of a bureaucratic past and New Public Management (NPM) reforms have brought mixed results in the public administration of long-term care services. In the context of growing care needs and public spending, governments have rationalised and controlled budgets, increased management professionalisation, and extended the evaluation of results based on user satisfaction. However, it has also come at the cost of increased hierarchisation, bureaucracy, and reduced autonomy and professionalisation of care workers. Ultimately, this has led to a rigid and sometimes inefficient organisation of care work, including little participation of care receivers and caregivers in the weekly organisation of care tasks and, therefore, a lack of adaptation to the changing care needs of older adults. This has also rendered low-quality services.

Due to these limitations, governments are growing dissatisfied with how care work is organised and are introducing reforms to improve it. However, despite reform attempts, it is not still clear the direction of innovations. For instance, one organisational model that has received attention is the diffusion of the Buurtzorg model. This model mainly seeks to increase worker self-management and adapt to the care receiver’s needs by creating small, self-managed teams of care workers. 

The aim of this thematic panel is twofold. Firstly, to discuss the implications of past public administration reforms, such as NPM introduction, for care work organisation and governance. Secondly, to understand why and how local governments implement organisational and other innovations that aim to de-bureaucratize, democratise, and increase labour conditions and communitarian participation. Studies that critically analyse the effects and results of recent reforms are also welcomed.  The panel is open to comparative and single case studies and qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. 

Convenors-

Dr Elisabeth Schröder-Butterfill, Associate Professor in Gerontology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Southampton, UK

Older people’s care networks are a narrow sub-set of their wider kinship and social networks (Keating et al. 2003). Especially personal care and care involving dementia are typically under tight normative control. Who is acceptable to provide which kind of care, which tasks may be delegated, who may substitute for a preferred carer, and the appropriateness of non-kin care are all questions which highlight the importance of boundaries in care provision. These boundaries are shaped by culture, welfare regimes, economic and social status. Gradual change (e.g., in gender roles, family systems, migration) and sudden crises (e.g., illness or death, conflict or displacement, livelihood threats) force boundaries of care networks to be redrawn, often in ways that are contested or threaten sustainability of care. For an older person receiving care, the identity of carers matters for their wellbeing and social status, while for caregivers the size and composition of care networks shape the potential division of labour and resilience to crises. 

This panel seeks papers on the nature and role of boundaries in older people’s informal care. Papers using qualitative or mixed method approaches are particularly welcome, as are papers focused on the Global South, on cross-cultural comparisons or on ethnic minorities. The following topics are merely suggestive:

• Notions of belonging and exclusion in informal care networks 
• The role of culture in shaping preferences around who should give care
• The inclusion (or not) of friends, neighbours, paid carers or volunteers in the ‘acceptable’ provision of care for older people 
• The impact of care networks’ boundaries of belonging on their responsiveness to crises 
• The role of conflict and/or inequality in drawing boundaries in care provision 
• Historical changes in how ‘appropriate’ care for older people is conceptualised 
• Division of labour within care networks and its implications for care