In Chapter 2 we considered the extent of discursive convergence between the four nations as part of setting the context for the policy analysis presented in this book. We noted the similarities in the four nations in their focus on wellbeing, fairness, rights, quality and sustainability. In this chapter we look at the characteristics of the four nations that are ‘care-relevant’, to provide further context and draw out the contextual divergences that sit alongside discursive convergence. We use Razavi's (2007) ‘care diamond’ as a heuristic device that identifies four ‘supply-side’ components of care – family, state, market and community – in order to explore the contribution that each makes in the four nations. We explore different aspects of care, for example, levels of unpaid care and the degree of marketisation. Alongside these, we also consider the legitimacy of different points of the diamond, such as the contested role of state and market, or the appropriate roles for family and community. We look at how the values identified in the previous chapter – wellbeing, fairness, rights, quality and sustainability – give emphasis to particular ways of arranging care.

One of the clear themes from Chapters 1 and 2 is that adult social care in the four nations has been under strain for the last two decades. All the documents we analysed converged on a view that something must be done. As set out in Chapter 1, this has gone from a sense of ‘slow collapse’ to one of ‘urgent crisis’. We structure this chapter around five ‘crisis claims’, namely, that there is:

• • a crisis of demand, created by population ageing;

• • a crisis of family, created by changing family structures and/or overloading of unpaid carers;

• • a crisis of the state, with historic failings exacerbated by underfunding and inadequate policy;

• • a crisis of the market, with unstable or inadequate provision due to underfunding and/or profit extraction;

• • a crisis of community, with not-for-profit providers struggling to stay afloat and broader community resources undervalued.

Key descriptive indicators and our own interview data provide evidence of fragility in all of these domains, which we discuss in this chapter. However, we also recognise that claims of crisis invoke competing normative views about what is meant by care, who should provide care, and under what conditions.