Advertisement

Traditional Foundations of Novel Opportunities: Marketization in Finland’s Care Sector

  • Petra MerenheimoEmail author
Chapter
  • 84 Downloads
Part of the International Perspectives on Aging book series (Int. Perspect. Aging, volume 22)

Abstract

This chapter explores societal understandings framing the marketization methods of outsourcing, public investment funding and customer choice. Drawing on Pierre Bourdieu’s concepts of capital, it demonstrates acknowledged capital forms and the relationships among them, particularly those related to technology and care. The chapter shows how innovations and related business opportunities are legitimized through their contribution to improved productivity and that care innovation can be conceptualized as a technological advancement. The study argues that such a conceptualization is rooted in the one-sided economic approach toward the female dominated care work, and elder care in particular, as a societal cost.

Keywords

Care marketization Innovation Elderly care Bourdieu Investment funding 

References

  1. Åkerblad, L. (2009). Hoivayrittäjän arki: lämpöä, puhtautta ja johtamista. Janus, 17(4), 313–328.Google Scholar
  2. Anttonen, A., & Häikiö, L. (2011). Care ‘going market’: Finnish elderly-care policies in transition. Nordic Journal of Social Research, 1–21.Google Scholar
  3. Anttonen, A., & Meagher, G. (2013). Mapping marketisation: Concepts and goals. In G. Meagher & M. Szebehely (Eds.), Marketisation in Nordic eldercare – A research report on legislation, oversight, extent and consequences (pp. 13–21). Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  4. Baumol, W., & Bowen, W. (1965). On the performing arts: The anatomy of their economic problems. American Economic Review, 55(1-2), 495–502.Google Scholar
  5. Beckmann, M. & Oerder, K. (2017). Produktivitätsschwache Dienstleistungen? Warum wir ein neues Verständnis von Produktivität brauchen. WiSo Direkt 29/2017, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Bonn.Google Scholar
  6. Bourdieu, P. (1972). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. E. Richardsson (Ed.), Handbook of theory of research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenword Press.Google Scholar
  8. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The logic of practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Brommels, M., Aronkytö, T., Kananoja, A., Lillrank, P., & Reijula, K. (2016). Valinnanvapaus ja monikanavarahoituksen yksinkertaistaminen (p. 37). Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön raportteja ja muistioita.Google Scholar
  10. Brüker, D., Kaiser, P., Leiber, S., & Leitner, S. (2017). Die Rolle der Kommunen in der Pflegepolitik. Zeitschrift für Sozialreform, 63(2), 301–332. www.wiso-net.de. Accessed 20 Dec 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Henau, J., Himmelweit, S. Łapniewska, Z., & Perrons, D. (2016). Investing in the Care Economy, A gender analysis of employment stimulus in seven OECD countries March 2016, A report by the UK Women’s Budget Group, International Trade Union Confederation.Google Scholar
  12. Duffy, M. (2011). Making care count: A century of gender, race, and paid care work. Rutgers University Press ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ulapland-ebooks/detail.action?docID=816479. Accessed 28 Aug 2017.
  13. Elson, D. (2016). Plan F: Feminist plan for a caring and sustainable economy. Globalizations, 13(6), 919–921.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14747731.2016.1156320. Accessed 8 Sept 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ELY application form (SME investment grants). Suomi.fi (Finnish Population Register Centre). https://lomake.fi/a/ec/index.cgi/download?s=dbqkl4KJbyNxjAy&id=3862%2FBED43DDABFDE037576429A092201A93F&type=statics. Accessed 11 Feb 2011.
  15. Evers, J., Hafkesbrink, J., & Becke, G. (2013). Einleitung: Gestaltung der Produktivität sozialer Dienstleistungen. In G. Becke, J. Evers, J. Hafkesbrink, R. Wehl, & A. Wetjen (Eds.), Das Mess- und Gestaltungskonzept der Produktivität sozialer Dienstleistungen (artec-paper Nr. 191). Bremen: Universität Bremen.Google Scholar
  16. German Federal Ministry of Finance. (2015). Kompendium zur Schuldenbremse des Bundes, www.bundesfinanzministerium.de. Accessed 29 Oct 2018.
  17. Hallipelto, A. (2008). Paras tuottakoon. Vammala: Kunnallisalan kehittämissäätiön Polemia-sarjan julkaisu nro 68.Google Scholar
  18. Handrich. L. (2013). Möglichkeiten der Darstellung der volkswirtschaftlichen Bedeutung der Sozialwirtschaft – Machbarkeitsstudie, DIW-econ GmbH, 8.3.2013, Berlin.Google Scholar
  19. Hartman, S. (2012). Sosiaalipalvelut. Ministry of Employment and the Economy. Toimialaraportit. http://www.temtoimialapalvelu.fi/files/1638/Sosiaalipalvelut2012_web.pdf. Accessed 14 May 2013.
  20. HE 16/2018 vp. Hallituksen esitys eduskunnalle laiksi asiakkaan valinnanvapaudesta sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollossa ja eräiksi siihen liittyviksi laeiksi. The Parliament of Finland. www.eduskunta.fi. Accessed 12 May 2018.
  21. Himmelweit, S. & Perrons, D. (2006). Gender and fiscal rules: How can we afford the rising cost of care? Levyinstitute. http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/CP/May2006_symposium_papers/paper_Himmelweit_Perrons.pdf. Accessed 18 May 2014.
  22. Hirvonen, H. (2014). Habitus and care. Investigating welfare service workers’ agency. Academic dissertation, Jyväskylä, University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  23. Hirvonen, H., & Husso, M. (2012). Hoivatyön ajalliset kehykset ja rytmiristiriidat. Työelämän tutkimus, 10(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  24. Karsio, O., & Anttonen, A. (2013). Marketisation of eldercare in Finland: Legal frames, outsourcing practices and the rapid growth of for-profit services. In G. Meagher & M. Szebehely (Eds.), Marketisation in Nordic eldercare – A research report on legislation, oversight, extent and consequences (pp. 85–126). Stockholm: Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  25. Kauppinen, S., & Niskanen, T. (2005). Yksityinen palvelutuotanto sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollossa (Stakes raportteja 288). Saarijärvi: Gummerus.Google Scholar
  26. Kautto, M. (2004). Ikääntyminen voimavarana, Tulevaisuusselonteon liiteraportti 5, Valtioneuvoston kanslian julkaisusarja 33/2004, ISBN 952–5354-75-X ISSN 0782–6028, Helsinki, Edita Prima Oy.Google Scholar
  27. Kettunen, R. (2006). Sosiaalipalvelut (Toimialaraportti 18/2006). Helsinki: Ministry of Trade and Industry.Google Scholar
  28. Koskiaho, B. (2008). Hyvinvointipalvelujen tavaratalossa. Tampere: Vastapaino.Google Scholar
  29. Koski, H., & Ylä-Anttila, P. (2011). Yritystukien vaikuttavuus: tutkimushankkeen yhteenvero ja johtopäätökset. Ministry of Employment and Economy Reports 7/2011.Google Scholar
  30. Kovalainen, A., & Österberg-Högstedt, J. (2000). Sosiaalinen pääoma, luottamus ja julkisen sektorin restrukturaatio. In K. Ilmonen (Ed.), Sosiaalinen pääoma ja luottamus (pp. 69–92). Jyväskylä: SoPhi 42, University of Jyväskylä.Google Scholar
  31. Kovalainen, A., & Österberg-Högstedt, J. (2013). Entrepreneurship within social and health care – A question of identity, gender and profession. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship, 5(1), 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. KTM Ministry of trade and industry of Finland. (2005). Naisyrittäjyys publication 11/2005. Yrittäjänaiset/female entrepreneurs. http://www.yrittajanaiset.fi/doc/Naisyrittäjyysjulkaisu_2005.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2012.
  33. Lehto, M. (2014). Vanhoille ihmisoikeudet! In L. Valkonen (Ed.), Arvokas vanhuus on ihmisoikeus. Aina (pp. 10–11). Kerava: The Finnish Association for the Welfare of Older people.Google Scholar
  34. Lith, P. (2006). Yritystoiminta ja kuntien ostopalvelut sosiaali- ja terveydenhuollossa. Ministry for Employment and Economy, report 25/2006.Google Scholar
  35. Maroto, A., & Rubalcaba, L. (2008). Structure, size and reform of the public sector in Europe. In P. Windrum & P. K. Cheltenham (Eds.), Innovation in public sector services (pp. 41–63). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  36. Merenheimo, P. (2010). Sosiaalipalveluyrittäjyyden ehdot ja mahdollisuudet: ulkoistamiskeskustelun diskurssit palvelusetelityöryhmän muistiossa. Työelämän tutkimus, 3, 252–266.Google Scholar
  37. Merenheimo, P. (2013). Entrepreneurs’ access to public finance as a gendered structure, case Finland, European conference of innovation and entrepreneurship, Brussels 19.-20.9.2013. In S. Teirlinck & F. D. B. Kelchtermans (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8th European conference on innovation and entrepreneurship 2013 (Vol. 2, pp. 747–754). Reading, UK: PACPI Academic Conferences and International Publishing.Google Scholar
  38. Merenheimo, P. (2015). Money cares. Institutional entrepreneurship in the Finnish social services sector. Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation, 11(2), 83–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Merenheimo, P. (2016). The good, the bad and the ugly: Societal understandings framing opportunities for female entrepreneurship in care. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 7(2), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Naisbitt, J., Naisbitt, N., & Philips, D. (1999). High tech, high touch, auf der Suche nach Balance zwischen Technologie und Mensch. Wien, Hamburg: Signum business.Google Scholar
  41. Österberg-Högstedt, J. (2009). Yrittäjänä ammatissaan sosiaali- ja terveysalalla – yrittäjyyden muotoutuminen kuntatoimijoiden ja yrittäjien näkökulmasta. Doctoral dissertation. Turku, Finland: Turku School of Economics.Google Scholar
  42. Perrons, D. (2010). Gender, Work and ‘Market’ Values. Renewal, 18(1–2), 34–42.Google Scholar
  43. Pettersson, K. (2007). Men and male as the norm? A gender perspective on innovation policies in Denmark, Finland and Sweden, Nordic Research Programme 2005–2008. Report: 4.Google Scholar
  44. PeVL 26 2017 vp The Constitutional Law Committee’s statement on the social and health care reform, https://www.eduskunta.fi/FI/vaski/Lausunto/Sivut/PeVL_26+2017.aspx. Accessed 1 Dec 2017.
  45. Razavi, S. (2010). The return to social policy and the persistent neglect of unpaid care. In C. Bauhardt & G. Caglar (Eds.), Gender and economics, Feministische Kritik der politischen Ökonomie (pp. 105–131). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  46. Salminen, A. (2008). Evaluating the new governance of the welfare state in Finland. International Journal of Public Administration, 31, 1242–1258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Stiglitz, J. E. (1997). Economics (2nd ed.). New York/London: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  48. STM Ministry for Social Affairs and Health. (2008). Palvelusetelin käyttöalan laajentaminen. Palvelusetelityöryhmän muistio. Helsinki: Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriön selvityksiä.Google Scholar
  49. TEM Ministry of Employment and the Economy. (2012) Toimialapäälliköiden rahoitusnäkemykset, http://www.temtoimialapalvelu.fi/files/1491/LOPULLINEN_Rahoitusnakemykset_2012_web.pdf. Accessed 27 June 2012.
  50. TEM/2431/03.01.04/2017, Guidelines for SME investment funding. www.finlex.fi/TEM2431, downloaded 6.6.2019.
  51. TEM/414/00.35.05.01/2010 Guidelines for SME investment funding. www.update.te-keskus.fi/public/downloads, downloaded 31.3.2011.
  52. Tevameri, T. (2017). Terveys- ja sosiaalipalvelut. Toimalaraportit: Ministry of Employment and the Economy. ISBN: 978-952-327-253-8.Google Scholar
  53. THL National Institute for Health and Welfare. (10.12.2015) Health care and social welfare personnel 2013, https://www.thl.fi/en/tilastot/tilastot-aiheittain/sosiaali-ja-terveydenhuollon-henkilosto/sosiaali-ja-terveyspalvelujen-henkilosto. Accessed 15 Jan 2018.
  54. van Slyke, D. (2003). The mythology of privatization in contracting for social services. Public Administration Review, 63, 296–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fakultät für Angewandte Sozialwissenschaften, Institut für GeschlechterstudienTechnische Hochschule KölnKölnGermany

Personalised recommendations