Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T22:29:54.264Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are the concepts of ‘social investment’ and ‘long-term care for the elderly’ compatible? Perceptions of long-term care stakeholders in Lithuania

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 March 2020

Virginija Poškutė
Virginija Poškutė*
Affiliation:
ISM University of Management and Economics, Vilnius, Lithuania
*
CONTACT Virginija Poškutė VIRPOS@ISM.LT
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Ageing of society and long-term care (LTC) for the elderly are becoming hot topics on most European countries’ social and economic policy agendas. Increasing demand for the financing of LTC raises the necessity for a search for social policy alternatives without further increasing pressure on national budgets. The social investment approach is seen as an argument in favour of interpreting social expenditure as a ‘productive factor’ (ILO. (2005). Social protection as a productive factor. GB.294/ESP/4. Geneva, p. 2). This approach to welfare systems argues that social expenditure might be seen as investment that produces economic and social returns in time. The perception of what social investment is in relation to the LTC for the elderly is not clear either in public or academic discussion. In responding to this lacuna, this article analyses the views of LTC stakeholders in Lithuania concerning: the system and its challenges; what factors they consider as most significant to successful LTC policies and their implementation; and how the concept of social investment should be understood.

Keywords

Social investmentlong-term careelderlyLithuaniasuccess factors
Type
Article
Information
Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 151 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bouget, D., Frazer, H., Marlier, E., Sabato, S., & Vanhercke, B. (2015). Social investment in Europe. A study of national policies. Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Bouget, D., Spasova, S., & Vanhercke, B. (2016). Work-life balance measures for persons of working age with dependent relatives in Europe. A study of national policies, European Social Policy Network (ESPN). Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G., Gallie, D., Hemerijck, A., & Myles, J. (2002). Why we need a new welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission. (2003). The impact of ageing populations on public finances: Overview of analysis carried out at EU level and proposals for a future work programme. 22 October 2003. EPC/ECFIN/435/03 final. Brussels: Economic Policy Committee.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2012). Long-term Care: Need, Use and Expenditure in the EU-27. Economic Papers No. 469 (November 2012). Brussels: Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs Publications. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2013). Social investment package. Communication from the commission to the parliament, the council, the European economic and social committee and the committee of the regions. Towards social investment for growth and cohesion – including implementing the European Social Fund 2014–2020. COM(2013) 83 final.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2016a). Joint report on health care and long-term care systems and fiscal sustainability. Volume 1, Luxembourg, Publication of the European Union.Google Scholar
European Commission. (2016b). Lithuania: Health care & long-term care systems. An excerpt from the joint report on health care and long-term care systems & fiscal sustainability. Institutional paper 37. Volume 2. Brussels: Economic and Financial Affairs; Economic Policy Committee. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/joint-report_lt_en_2.pdfGoogle Scholar
European Union. (2014). Adequate social protection for long-term care needs in an ageing society. Report jointly prepared by the Social Protection Committee and the European Commission. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.Google Scholar
Greve, B. (Ed.). (2017a). Long-term care for the elderly in Europe. Development and prospects. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Greve, B. (2017b). The long-term care resourcing landscape. Retrieved from http://sprint-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/SPRINT_LTC_Resourcing_Landscape.pdfGoogle Scholar
Health Statistics of Lithuania 2014. (2015). Vilnius: Health Information Centre of Institute of Hygiene.Google Scholar
Hemerijck, A. (2013). Changing welfare states. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hemerijck, A. (2015). The quiet paradigm revolution of social investment. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 22(2), 242–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ILO. (2005). Social protection as a productive factor. GB.294/ESP/4. Geneva.Google Scholar
Lazutka, A., Poviliunas, A., & Zalimiene, L. (2015). ESPN thematic report on social investment: Lithuania. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Leoni, T. (2016). Social investment as a perspective on welfare state transformation in Europe. Intereconomics, 51(4), 194–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lopes, A. (2017). Conceptual report on long-term care. Report from the SPRINT project. Retrieved from http://sprint-project.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/SPRINT_Conceptual_Report_LTC.pdfGoogle Scholar
Marcinkowska, I. (2010). The long-term care system for the elderly in Lithuania. Enepri Research Report No. 82. Retrieved from http://www.ancien-longtermcare.eu/sites/default/files/ENEPRI%20_ANCIEN_%20RR%20No%2082%20Lithuania.pdfGoogle Scholar
Morel, N., Palier, B., & Palme, J. (Eds.). (2012). Towards a social investment welfare state? Ideas, policies and challenges. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Nicaise, I., & Shepers, W. (2013). Social investment: The new paradigm of EU social policy? Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/contributions/nicaisescheperssocialinvestmentbtsz.pdfGoogle Scholar
Pagyvenusių žmonių globos sektoriaus transformacijos: paslaugų, darbo jėgos poreikis ir užimtumo kokybė. (2017). (Sectors for elderly care transformations: Demand for services and labour force and quality of employment) project report. Vilnius: Lietuvos Socialinių Tyrimų Centro Socialinės Gerovės Institutas, Darbo Rinkos Tyrimų Institutas. Retrieved from http://lstc.lt/download/laikrastis_nr4.pdfGoogle Scholar
Poskute, V. (2017). Long-term care: Challenges and perspectives. In Greve, B. (Ed.), Long-term care for the elderly in Europe. Development and prospects (pp. 23–37). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Poskute, V., & Greve, B. (2017). Long-term care in Denmark and Lithuania – A most dissimilar case. Social Policy and Administration, 51(4), 659–675.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Statistics Lithuania. (2015). Results of the health interview survey of the population of Lithuania 2014. Vilnius: Lietuvos Statistikos Departamentas.Google Scholar
Valstybės kontrolė. (2015). Ar teikiamos socialinės paslaugos tenkina didėjančius senyvo amžiaus asmenų poreikius. (Does Provision of Social Services Meet Increasing Needs of Older People). Valstybinio audito ataskaita No. VA-P-10-9-10. 30th June, 2015. Vilnius: National Audit Office of Lithuania.Google Scholar