IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/femeco/v11y2005i2p37-51.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Eldercare In The United States: Inadequate, Inequitable, But Not A Lost Cause

Author

Listed:
  • Susan Eaton

Abstract

Eldercare, like other forms of care work, is often taken for granted and undervalued. The burdens as well as the failures of providing care for the elderly are often borne disproportionately by women. This paper documents inequality of access and low quality of care for the elderly in the United States. It argues that public funds used to subsidize nursing homes are poorly spent and that profit-maximizing competition in the nursing home industry adversely affects the quality of care provided. In seeking to address these problems, policy-makers can learn important lessons from several different sources. The experiences of several European countries, current regulatory efforts in the state of Massachusetts, and more decentralized volunteer efforts to promote humane visions of eldercare all offer some hope for the future.

Suggested Citation

  • Susan Eaton, 2005. "Eldercare In The United States: Inadequate, Inequitable, But Not A Lost Cause," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(2), pages 37-51.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:femeco:v:11:y:2005:i:2:p:37-51
    DOI: 10.1080/13545700500115845
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13545700500115845
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13545700500115845?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wilson, Randall & Eaton, Susan C. & Kamanu, Amara, 2003. "Extended Care Career Ladder Initiative (ECCLI) Round 2: Evaluation Report," Working Paper Series rwp03-006, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    2. Geoff Schneider & Jean Shackelford, 2001. "Economics Standards and Lists: Proposed Antidotes for Feminist Economists," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 77-89.
    3. Walter M. Cadette, "undated". "Caring for a Large Geriatric Generation: The Coming Crisis in U.S. Health Care," Economics Policy Note Archive 03-3, Levy Economics Institute.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Silvia Dorado & Ying Chen & Andrea M. Prado & Virginia Simon, 2022. "Attuned HRM Systems for Social Enterprises," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 178(3), pages 829-848, July.
    2. Giménez-Nadal, José Ignacio & Molina, José Alberto & Velilla, Jorge, 2020. "Should we cheer together? Gender differences in instantaneous well-being during joint and solo activities: An application to COVID-19 lockdowns," GLO Discussion Paper Series 736, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    3. Mary Eschelbach Hansen & Paul Jacobs, 2007. "Valuing Substitute Families:Financial Support for Foster and Adoptive Families," Working Papers 2007-04, American University, Department of Economics.
    4. Carole Green, 2007. "Reconciling Work and Family Responsibilities: Practical Ideas from Global Experience," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 215-220.
    5. José Ignacio Giménez-Nadal & José Alberto Molina & Jorge Velilla, 2023. "Should We Cheer Together? Gender Differences in Instantaneous Well-being: An Application to COVID-19 Lockdowns," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 24(2), pages 529-562, February.
    6. Gimenez-Nadal, José Ignacio & Molina, José Alberto & Velilla, Jorge, 2020. "Should We Cheer Together? Gender Differences in Instantaneous Well-Being during Joint and Solo Activities," IZA Discussion Papers 13306, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Lois B. Shaw, 2006. "Differing Prospects For Women and Men: Young Old-Age, Old Old-Age, and Elder Care," Economics Working Paper Archive wp_464, Levy Economics Institute.
    8. Zeytinoglu, Isik U. & Denton, Margaret & Davies, Sharon & Plenderleith, Jennifer Millen, 2009. "Casualized employment and turnover intention: Home care workers in Ontario, Canada," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 258-268, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Horodecka, Anna & Śliwińska, Magdalena, 2019. "Fair Trade phenomenon – limits of neoclassical and chances of heterodox economics," Studia z Polityki Publicznej / Public Policy Studies, Warsaw School of Economics, vol. 6(3), pages 1-29, July.
    2. Christopher Magee, 2009. "Do Professors’ Opinions Affect Students?," Forum for Social Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2-3), pages 135-151, January.
    3. KimMarie McGoldrick & Robert Garnett, 2013. "Big Think: A Model for Critical Inquiry in Economics Courses," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 44(4), pages 389-398, October.
    4. Christopher Magee, 2009. "Do Professors’ Opinions Affect Students?," Forum for Social Economics, Springer;The Association for Social Economics, vol. 38(2), pages 135-151, July.
    5. Geoffrey Schneider, 2011. "The Purpose, Structure and Content of the Principles of Economics Course," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 27, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    6. Margaret Lewis & Kimmarie McGoldrick, 2001. "Moving Beyond the Masculine Neoclassical Classroom," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 91-103.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:femeco:v:11:y:2005:i:2:p:37-51. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RFEC20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.