Caregiving time costs and trade-offs: Gender differences in Sweden, the UK, and Canada.
Cross-country comparison
Gender
Time allocation
Time use data
Unpaid caregiving
Journal
SSM - population health
ISSN: 2352-8273
Titre abrégé: SSM Popul Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101678841
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Dec 2019
Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
27
08
2019
revised:
09
10
2019
accepted:
12
10
2019
entrez:
14
11
2019
pubmed:
14
11
2019
medline:
14
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Population ageing is putting pressure on pension systems and health care services, creating an imperative to extend working lives. At the same time, policy makers throughout Europe and North America are trying to expand the use of home care over institutional services. Thus, the number of people combining caregiving responsibilities with paid work is growing. We investigate the conflicts that arise from this by exploring the time costs of unpaid care and how caregiving time is traded off against time in paid work and leisure in three distinct policy contexts. We analyze how these tradeoffs differ for men and women (age 50-74), using time diary data from Sweden, the UK and Canada from 2000 to 2015. Results show that women provide more unpaid care in each country, but the impact of unpaid care on labor supply is similar for male and female caregivers. Caregivers in the UK and Canada, particularly those involved in intensive caregiving, reduce paid work in order to provide unpaid care. Caregivers in Sweden do not trade off time in paid work with time in caregiving, but they have less leisure time. Our findings support the idea that the more extensive social infrastructure for caring in Sweden may diminish the labor market effects of unpaid care, but highlight that throughout contexts, intensive caregivers make important labor and leisure tradeoffs. Respite care and financial support policies are important for caregivers who are decreasing labor and leisure time to provide unpaid care.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31720360
doi: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2019.100501
pii: S2352-8273(19)30267-8
pii: 100501
pmc: PMC6839008
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100501Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
© 2019 The Authors.
Références
J Health Econ. 2010 Jan;29(1):182-90
pubmed: 20004991
J Health Econ. 2003 Sep;22(5):781-803
pubmed: 12946459
J Health Econ. 1998 Dec;17(6):747-65
pubmed: 10339251
J Health Econ. 2010 Dec;29(6):895-903
pubmed: 20864197
J Health Econ. 2004 Nov;23(6):1159-80
pubmed: 15556241
Popul Trends. 2010 Autumn;(141):51-73
pubmed: 20927029
J Health Econ. 2013 Jan;32(1):240-52
pubmed: 23220459
Inquiry. 2006 Fall;43(3):195-210
pubmed: 17176964
J Health Econ. 2008 May;27(3):718-38
pubmed: 18207265
Soc Sci Med. 2013 Mar;81:102-9
pubmed: 23347496
Milbank Q. 2007 Dec;85(4):641-90
pubmed: 18070333
Soc Sci Med. 2016 May;156:1-11
pubmed: 27010581
Can J Nurs Res. 2001 Sep;33(2):11-25
pubmed: 11928333
J Health Econ. 2007 May 1;26(3):536-59
pubmed: 17098311