从机构到家庭?荷兰战后长期护理政策中对认知障碍儿童责任分配的变化

IF 0.3 3区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY Journal of Modern European History Pub Date : 2024-10-07 DOI:10.1177/16118944241287725
Paul van Trigt
{"title":"从机构到家庭?荷兰战后长期护理政策中对认知障碍儿童责任分配的变化","authors":"Paul van Trigt","doi":"10.1177/16118944241287725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Who is responsible for health care? Neoliberal policies since the 1970s seem to place this responsibility increasingly on the individual, in a process that is called responsibilization. The recent literature on neoliberalism, however, has questioned the preference of free-market liberalism for individual responsibility and shows how neoliberals often made common cause with communitarian conservatives on social policies. Melinda Cooper, for instance, has argued in her book Family Values that free-market liberals and social conservatives in the US both identified the family as a ‘wholesale alternative to the 20-century welfare state’. This article investigates whether this coalition of neoliberals and social conservatives, who agree on the importance of familial solidarity in addition to market freedom, has also played a role in the making of Dutch health care policies. By tracing how responsibility for long-term care has been allocated in the postwar Netherlands in the specific case of children with (cognitive) disabilities, the author will show how ‘the family’ has increasingly been embraced by policymakers as the main responsible party. This is remarkable because the Dutch postwar welfare state sought to loosen family ties in favour of individual arrangements. However, attempts by different stakeholders to deinstitutionalize Dutch health care during the 1990s unintentionally moved the state's responsibility for long-term care not so much onto individuals as onto families.","PeriodicalId":44275,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Modern European History","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Institutions to Families? The Changing Allocation of Responsibility for Cognitively Disabled Children in Dutch Postwar Long-Term Care Policies\",\"authors\":\"Paul van Trigt\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/16118944241287725\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Who is responsible for health care? Neoliberal policies since the 1970s seem to place this responsibility increasingly on the individual, in a process that is called responsibilization. The recent literature on neoliberalism, however, has questioned the preference of free-market liberalism for individual responsibility and shows how neoliberals often made common cause with communitarian conservatives on social policies. Melinda Cooper, for instance, has argued in her book Family Values that free-market liberals and social conservatives in the US both identified the family as a ‘wholesale alternative to the 20-century welfare state’. This article investigates whether this coalition of neoliberals and social conservatives, who agree on the importance of familial solidarity in addition to market freedom, has also played a role in the making of Dutch health care policies. By tracing how responsibility for long-term care has been allocated in the postwar Netherlands in the specific case of children with (cognitive) disabilities, the author will show how ‘the family’ has increasingly been embraced by policymakers as the main responsible party. This is remarkable because the Dutch postwar welfare state sought to loosen family ties in favour of individual arrangements. However, attempts by different stakeholders to deinstitutionalize Dutch health care during the 1990s unintentionally moved the state's responsibility for long-term care not so much onto individuals as onto families.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44275,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Modern European History\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Modern European History\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944241287725\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Modern European History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/16118944241287725","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

谁对医疗保健负责?20 世纪 70 年代以来的新自由主义政策似乎越来越多地将这一责任赋予个人,这一过程被称为 "责任化"(responsibilization)。然而,近期有关新自由主义的文献对自由市场自由主义偏好个人责任的观点提出了质疑,并显示了新自由主义者在社会政策上是如何与社群主义保守派达成共识的。例如,梅琳达-库珀(Melinda Cooper)在其著作《家庭价值观》(Family Values)中指出,美国的自由市场自由主义者和社会保守主义者都将家庭视为 "20 世纪福利国家的全面替代选择"。新自由主义者和社会保守主义者一致认为,除了市场自由之外,家庭团结也非常重要,本文将探讨这一联盟是否也在荷兰医疗保健政策的制定过程中发挥了作用。通过追溯战后荷兰是如何分配长期护理责任的,作者将说明在(认知)残疾儿童的具体案例中,"家庭 "是如何越来越多地被政策制定者视为主要责任方的。值得注意的是,荷兰战后福利国家试图放松家庭关系,转而支持个人安排。然而,不同利益相关者在 20 世纪 90 年代试图将荷兰医疗保健非机构化,却无意中将国家对长期护理的责任转移到了家庭,而不是个人身上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
From Institutions to Families? The Changing Allocation of Responsibility for Cognitively Disabled Children in Dutch Postwar Long-Term Care Policies
Who is responsible for health care? Neoliberal policies since the 1970s seem to place this responsibility increasingly on the individual, in a process that is called responsibilization. The recent literature on neoliberalism, however, has questioned the preference of free-market liberalism for individual responsibility and shows how neoliberals often made common cause with communitarian conservatives on social policies. Melinda Cooper, for instance, has argued in her book Family Values that free-market liberals and social conservatives in the US both identified the family as a ‘wholesale alternative to the 20-century welfare state’. This article investigates whether this coalition of neoliberals and social conservatives, who agree on the importance of familial solidarity in addition to market freedom, has also played a role in the making of Dutch health care policies. By tracing how responsibility for long-term care has been allocated in the postwar Netherlands in the specific case of children with (cognitive) disabilities, the author will show how ‘the family’ has increasingly been embraced by policymakers as the main responsible party. This is remarkable because the Dutch postwar welfare state sought to loosen family ties in favour of individual arrangements. However, attempts by different stakeholders to deinstitutionalize Dutch health care during the 1990s unintentionally moved the state's responsibility for long-term care not so much onto individuals as onto families.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
42
期刊最新文献
Introduction: Disability and Family Care in Modern European History Social Science Data as a Challenge for Contemporary History From Darkness to Sunshine: Blind Babies, Families and the Sunshine Homes, 1918–1939 From Institutions to Families? The Changing Allocation of Responsibility for Cognitively Disabled Children in Dutch Postwar Long-Term Care Policies Redefining Family Relationships: The Impact of Disability on Working-Class Families during the Industrial Revolution in Britain
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1