Whose empowerment and independence? A cross-national perspective on ‘cash for care’ schemes

2004 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
CLARE UNGERSON

This paper uses qualitative data from a cross-national study of ‘cash for care’ schemes in five European countries (Austria, France, Italy, The Netherlands and the United Kingdom) to consider the concepts of empowerment and independence in relation to both care-users and care-givers. The paper locates the schemes along two axes, one of regulation/non-regulation, the other whether relatives can be paid or not. Each of the schemes has a different impact both on the care relationship and on the labour market for care. In The Netherlands where relatives can be paid, for example, a fully commodified form of informal care emerges; but in Austria and Italy with low regulation, a mix of informal and formal care-givers/workers has emerged with many international migrant workers. In the UK, direct payments allow care-users to employ local care-workers who deliver care for various lengths of time; while in France a credentialised system means that care-work is delivered by qualified workers but for very short intervals. The main conclusion is that none of these schemes have a simple outcome or advantage, and that the contexts in which they occur and the nature of their regulation has to be understood before drawing conclusions about their impact on empowerment and independence on both sides of the care relationship.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingvild Reymert ◽  
Jens Jungblut ◽  
Norway Siri B. Borlaug

AbstractStudies on academic recruitment processes have demonstrated that universities evaluate candidates for research positions using multiple criteria. However, most studies on preferences regarding evaluative criteria in recruitment processes focus on a single country, while cross-country studies are rare. Additionally, though studies have documented how fields evaluate candidates differently, those differences have not been deeply explored, thus creating a need for further inquiry. This paper aims to address this gap and investigates whether academics in two fields across five European countries prefer the same criteria to evaluate candidates for academic positions. The analysis is based on recent survey data drawn from academics in economics and physics in Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the UK. Our results show that the academic fields have different evaluative cultures and that researchers from different fields prefer specific criteria when assessing candidates. We also found that these field-specific preferences were to some extent mediated through national frameworks such as funding systems.


2000 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gene Rowe ◽  
Lynn Frewer ◽  
Lennart Sjöberg

Public understanding of risks is likely to be informed by the media. We report a cross-national study looking at how newspapers in Sweden and the United Kingdom characterize a variety of risks, focusing on two months around the 10th anniversary of the Chernobyl accident. Approximately four times as many reports about risks were found in Sweden as in the U.K., possibly reflecting a Swedish safety culture. The Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) crisis dominated reporting in both countries, especially in the U.K. The proportion and pattern of reports on Chernobyl was similar across countries. However, in Sweden, there was an increase in reports about other nuclear hazards after the anniversary, suggesting that generalization of media concern may have occurred. Generally, BSE was discussed using a greater number of characterizations in the U.K., while Chernobyl was reported using more characterizations in Sweden. Reports about hazards tended to be alarmist rather than reassuring, and rarely used statistics to express degrees of risk.


2013 ◽  
Vol 24 (12) ◽  
pp. 2299-2320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judy W. Scully ◽  
Sandra C. Buttigieg ◽  
Alexis Fullard ◽  
Duncan Shaw ◽  
Mike Gregson

1989 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 562-570 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Gibson

In recent years there has been a resurgence in interest in the cross-national study of public opinion. A significant component of this rekindling of attention has been the specific area of public support for the fundamental values of democracy. John Sullivan and his various colleagues have reported on political tolerance in the United States, Israel, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. In conjunction with a smattering of more limited cross-national studies, and newly-completed studies that are just now emerging, a wealth of comparative data is now available.


2012 ◽  
Vol 197 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 66-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matteo Giletta ◽  
Ron H.J. Scholte ◽  
Rutger C.M.E. Engels ◽  
Silvia Ciairano ◽  
Mitchell J. Prinstein

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document