CASE REPORT
Obstacles to caring institutions in eldercare: The Czech Republic as a social laboratory of capitalist transformation
Zuzana Uhde 1  
,   Hana Maříková 1  
 
More details
Hide details
1
Czech Academy of Sciences Institute of Sociology
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
Zuzana Uhde   

Zuzana Uhde, Gender & Sociology Department, Institute of Sociology of the CAS, Jilská 1, 110 00 Praha 1, Czech Republic; author’s email address: zuzana.uhde@soc.cas.cz
Hana Maříková   

Hana Maříková, Gender & Sociology Department, Institute of Sociology of the CAS, Jilská 1, 110 00 Praha 1, Czech Republic; author’s email address: hana.marikova@soc.cas.cz
Publication date: 2020-05-11
 
Problemy Polityki Społecznej 2019;47:9–28
 
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
The issue of eldercare is becoming more and more important in late modern societies due to the aging of the population and the growing need for care. The article deals with formal care for older people (in residential facilities and home care) with a focus on the Czech Republic as one of the former real-socialist countries. Here, a significant transformation of the eldercare system began to take shape in the wake of capitalist transformation. However, it also took place in a society with relatively egalitarian societal attitudes and expectations. The article draws from qualitative research based on interviews with care workers in direct care and expert interviews with professionals working at different levels of eldercare system in the Czech Republic. Our analysis is based on the feminist theory of care that allows us to critically reflect on both the changes and the unintended consequences of the public care policies settings, and the perspectives of communication partners on how to provide quality care. Our goal is to identify elements that are perceived positively in connection with the rules setup and which, from the point of view of individual actors in formal care, help to create a genuine environment of caring institutions.
FUNDING
This work was supported by the project Configurations of Elderly Care in the CR: Labour, Love and Money (No. 15-078985, GAČR) and RVO No. 68378025
 
REFERENCES (37)
1.
Anderson, E. (1993). Value in Ethics and Economics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
 
2.
Barbieri, N. A., Sarti, C. (2016). Too much love: institutional care for old age, Vibrant—Virtual Brazilian Anthropology, 13(1) Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1809... (Accessed September 3, 2019).
 
3.
Bourgault, S. (2017). Prolegomena to a Caring Bureaucracy. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 24(3): 202–217.
 
4.
Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006). Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2): 77–101.
 
5.
Chválová, J. (2018). Financování a platy a počty zaměstnanců v sociálních službách v letech 2015 až 2017. Available from: http://www.zdravotnickeodbory.... (Accessed: 10 October, 2019).
 
6.
Colombo, F. et al. (2011). Help Wanted. Providing and Paying for Long-Term Care. OECD Health Policy Studies, OECD Publishing.
 
7.
Da Roit, B., Le Bihan, B. (2010). Similar and Yet So Different: Cash-for-Care in Six European Countries’ Long-Term Care Policies. The Milbank Quarterly, 88(3): 286–309.
 
8.
Dudová, R., Vohlídalová, M. (2018). Muži a ženy pečující o seniory v rodině. Sociologický časopis / Czech Sociological Review, 52(2): 219–252. Důvodová zpráva k zákonu č.108/2006 Sb. o sociálních službách (2005). Available from: https://www.vlada.cz/assets/pp... (Accessed: 11 October, 2019).
 
9.
Elder-Vass, D. J. (2012). The Reality of Social Construction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 
10.
Elder-Vass, D. J. (2015). Developing Social Theory Using Critical Realism. Journal of Critical Realism, 14(1): 80–92.
 
11.
Guest, G., MacQueen, K. M., Namey, E. E. (2012). Applied Thematic Analysis. Los Angeles: Sage.
 
12.
Held, V. (2006). The Ethics of Care. Personal, Political, and Global. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 
13.
Hubíková, O. (2012). Přímé platby za péči v kontextu nevyjasněného status neformální péče. Sociální práce / Sociálna práca, 4(12): 113–125.
 
14.
ISPV (2017). Informační systém o průměrném výdělku (II/2017). Available from: https://www.ispv.cz/getdoc/b33... (Accessed: 10 October 2019).
 
15.
Kasalová, H. et al. (1988). Životní situace starých občanů. Zpráva z výzkumu. Praha: VÚSRP.
 
16.
Kubalčíková, K., Havlíková, J. (2016). Current Developments in Social Care Services for Older Adults in the Czech Republic: Trends towards Deinstitutionalization and Marketization. Journal of Social Services Research, 42(2): 180–198.
 
17.
Maříková, H. (2019). Nadějné vyhlídky? Péče o starší z perspektivy osob pečujících ve formální péči. Fórum sociální politiky, 13(2): 9-14.
 
18.
Maříková, H., Plasová, B. (2012). Kontinuita nebo změna v systému zajištění péče o seniory vbČeské republice od roku 1948 vzhledem k genderovanosti politik péče. Fórum sociální politiky, 7(3): 2–7.
 
19.
Meagher, G., Szebehely, M., Mears, J. (2016). How Institutions Matter for Job Characteristics, Quality and experiences: A Comparison of Home Care Work for Older People in Australia and Sweden. Work, Employment and Society, 30(5): 731–749.
 
20.
Österle, A. (2010). Long-term Care in Centrals and South-Eastern Europe. Challenges and Perspectives in Addressing a ‘New Social Risk. Social Policy and Administration, 44(4): 461–480.
 
21.
Průša, l. (2009). Je nový systém financování sociálních služeb pro staré občany efektivní? Národohospodářský obzor, 9(3): 141–156.
 
22.
Průša, l. (2013). Ekonomická efektivita zajišťování péče o příjemce příspěvku na péči. Praha Available from: https://www.socialnaspolocnost... (Accessed 10 October, 2019).
 
23.
Radin, M. J. (1996). Contested Commodities: The Trouble with trade in Sex, Children, Body Parts, and Other Things. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
 
24.
Ranci, C., Pavolini, E. (2013). Reforms in Long-Term Care Policies in Europe: Investigating Institutional Change and Social Impacts. New York: Springer.
 
25.
Ruddick, S. (2002); [orig. 1989]. Maternal Thinking. Towards a Politics of Peace. Berkeley: University of California Press. Statistická ročenka z oblasti práce a sociálních věcí (2016). Praha: MPSV.
 
26.
Tronto, J. C. (1994). Moral Boundaries. A Political Argument for an Ethics of Care. New York: Routledge.
 
27.
Tronto, J. C. (2008). The Ethics of Care: Personal, Political, and Global (review). Hypatia, 23(1): 211–217.
 
28.
Tronto, J. C. (2010). Creating Caring Institutions: Politics, Plurality, and Purpose. Ethics and Social Welfare, 4(2): 158–171.
 
29.
Tronto, J. C. (2013). Caring Democracy. Markets, Equality, and Justice. New York: New York University Press.
 
30.
Uhde, Z. (2012). Autoritářství trhu: kritická diagnóza deformované emancipace žen. Filosofický časopis, 60(1): 55–76.
 
31.
Uhde, Z. (2018). Caring Revolutionary Transformation: Combined Effects of a Universal Basic Income and a Public Model of Care. Basic Income Studies, 13(2): 20170019. https://doi.org/10.1515/bis-20....
 
32.
Ungerson, C. (1997). Social Politics and the Commodification of Care. Social Politics, 4(3): 362–381.
 
33.
Valová, H., Janebová, R. (2015). Antiradikálnost” českých sociálních služeb aneb jak organizace sociálních služeb řeší pokles finančních prostředků. Sociální práce/ Sociálna práca, 15(1): 5–23.
 
34.
Veřejný ochránce práv. (2014). Kritická zjištění ze systematických návštěv pobytových zařízení pro seniory bez oprávnění k poskytování sociálních služeb. Brno: KVOP.
 
35.
Wengraf, T. (2002). Qualitative Research Interviewing: Biographic Narrative and Semi-structured Methods. London: Sage.
 
36.
Young, I. M. (1997). Asymmetrical Reciprocity: On Moral Respect, Wonder, and Enlarged Thought. Constellations, 3(3): 340–363.
 
37.
Young, I. M. (2007). Recognition of Love’s Labor. Considering Axel Honneth’s Feminism. In: B. van den Brink, D. Owen (eds). Recognition and Power. Axel Honneth and the Tradition of Critical Social Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 
ISSN:1640-1808