Elderly care has emerged as a national and global political concern—and increasingly become the subject of struggles about who should receive what kind of elderly care, provided by whom and under what working conditions, as well as about its form of regulation. In this chapter the key question is introduced and the argument put forward about the need for a new analytic and a new vocabulary of elderly care to understand its changing landscape. The new landscape is related to social and political processes and the general move toward a global governmentality with several levels of regulation and an increasing importance of transnational discourses, for example, neo-liberalism. This map highlights the increasing importance to study struggles about silence and regulation—and it is simultaneously a map drawn from a feminist, critical insider in the Nordic welfare regime.


Global political concern Struggles Power and a feminist view 


  1. Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bacchi, C. (2009). Analysing policy: What’s the problem represented to be? Frenchs Forest: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  3. Bröckling, U., Krasmann, S., & Lemke, T. (2010). From Foucault’s lectures at the Collège de France to studies of governmentality—An introduction. In U. Bröckling, S. Krasmann, & T. Lemke (Eds.), Governmentality—Current issues and future challenges (pp. 1–33). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, W. (1992). Finding the man in the state. Feminist Studies, 18(1), 7–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bubeck, D. (1995). Care, gender and justice. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Carlsson, K. (2014). Den tilfällige husmodern. Lund: Nordic Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Ceci, C., Björnsdottir, K., & Purkis, M. E. (2012). Introduction: Home, care, practice—Changing perspectives on care at home for older people. In C. Ceci, K. Björnsdottir, & M. E. Purkis (Eds.), Perspectives on care at home for older people (pp. 1–22). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Conrad, C. (2011). Social policy history after the transnational turn. In P. Kettunen & K. Petersen (Eds.), Beyond welfare state models (pp. 218–240). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  9. Dahl, H. M. (2000a). Fra kitler til eget tøj—Diskurser om professionalisme, omsorg og køn, Ph.D. thesis. Aarhus: Politica, Aarhus university.Google Scholar
  10. Dahl, H. M. (2000b). A perceptive and reflective state? The European Journal of Women’s Studies, 7(4), 475–494.Google Scholar
  11. Dahl, H. M. (2004). A view from the inside: Recognition and redistribution in the Nordic welfare state from a gender perspective. Acta Sociologica, 47(4), 325–337.Google Scholar
  12. Dahl, H. M. (2009). New public management, care and struggles about recognition. Critical Social Policy, 29(4), 634–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dahl, H. M. (2010). An old map of state feminism and an insufficient recognition of care. NORA—Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 18(3), 152–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dahl, H. M. (2012a). Tavshed som magt og afmagt. Tidsskriftet Antropologi, 33(66), 3–16.Google Scholar
  15. Dahl, H. M. (2012b). Neo-liberalism meets the Nordic welfare state—Gaps and silences. NORA, 20(4), 283–288.Google Scholar
  16. Dahl, H. M., Hansen, A. E., Hansen, C. S., & Kristensen, J. E. (2015a). Kamp og status—De lange linjer i børnehaveinstitutionens og pædagogprofessionens historie fra 1820 til 2015. Copenhagen: U Press.Google Scholar
  17. Dahl, H. M., Eskelinen, L., & Hansen, E. B. (2015b). Coexisting principles and logics of elder care: Help to self-help and consumer-oriented service. International Journal of Social Welfare, 24(3), 287–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Davies, C. (1995). Competence versus care? Gender and caring work revisited. Acta Sociologica, 38(1), 17–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology (G. Chakravorty Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Derrida, J. (1981). Disseminations (B. Johnson, Trans.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Finch, J. (1989). Family obligations and social change. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  22. Fineman, M. (2008). The vulnerable subject: Anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism, 21(1), 1–24.Google Scholar
  23. Flax, J. (1990). Thinking fragments. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  24. Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality—An introduction. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  25. Foucault, M. (1979). Discipline and punish –The birth of the prison. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  26. Fraser, N. (1989). Talking about needs: Interpretive contests as political conflicts in welfare state societies. Ethics, 99, 291–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fraser, N. (2008). Scales of justice—Reimagining political space in a globalizing world. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  28. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hernes, H. (1987). Welfare state and woman power—Essays in state feminism. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.Google Scholar
  31. Hochschild, A. R. (2001). Global care chains and emotional surplus value. In W. Hutton & A. Giddens (Eds.), On the edge: Living with global capitalism (pp. 130–146). London: Vintage.Google Scholar
  32. Hockey, J., & James, A. (1993). Growing up and growing old—Ageing and dependency in the life course. London: SAGE.Google Scholar
  33. Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69(1), 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hoppania, H. (2015). Care as a site of political struggle. Ph.D. thesis, Helsinki: University of Helsinki, Department of Political and Economic Studies.Google Scholar
  35. Hoppania, H., & Vaittinen, T. (2015). A household full of bodies: Neo-liberalism, care and ‘the political’. Global Society, 29(1), 70–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Huang, S., Yeoh, B. S. A., & Toyota, M. (2012). Caring for the elderly: The embodied labour of migrant care workers in Singapore. Global Networks, 12(2), 195–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Isaksen, L. W. (2011). Gendering the stranger: Nomadic care workers in Europe—A Polish-Italian example. In H. M. Dahl, M. Keränen, & A. Kovalainen (Eds.), Europeanization, care and gender—Global complexities (pp. 141–151). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jacobs, A, & Century, A. (2012, September 7). Duty first, in an ageing China. International Herald Tribune, p. 2.Google Scholar
  39. Johansson, S. (1994). Omöblering i folkhemmet. Nytt vin i gamla läglar? In L. Simonen (Ed.), När gränserna flyter—en nordisk antologi om vård och omsorg (pp. 31–50). Jyväskylä: STAKES.Google Scholar
  40. Jonasdottir, A. (1991). Love power and political interests. Örebro/Kumla: University of Örebro/Kumla tryckeri.Google Scholar
  41. Kantola, J., & Dahl, H. M. (2005). Gender and the state: From differences between to differences within. International Journal of Feminist Politics, 7(1), 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kittay, E. F., Jennings, B., & Wasunna, A. A. (2005). Dependency, difference and the global ethic of long-term care. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 13(4), 443–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Larner, W., & Walters, W. (2004). Introduction—Global governmentality: Governing international spaces. In W. Larner & W. Walters (Eds.), Global governmentality—Governing international spaces (pp. 1–20). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Laswell, H. D. (1950). Politics: Who gets what, when and how. New York: Peter Smith.Google Scholar
  45. Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  46. Lloyd, L. (2006). Call us carers: Limitations and risks in campaigning for recognition and exclusivity. Critical Social Policy, 26(4), 945–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Mol, A. (2008). The logic of care—Health and the problem of patient choice. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. Mouffe, C. (2005). On the political. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. Newman, J., & Tonkens, E. (2011). Introduction. In J. Newman & E. Tonkens (Eds.), Participation, responsibility and choice (pp. 9–28). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Norval, A. (1996). Deconstructing apartheid discourse. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  51. Nousianen, K. (2011). Double subsidiarity, double trouble? Allocating care responsibilities in the EU through social dialogue. In H. M. Dahl, M. Keränen, & A. Kovalainen (Eds.), Europeanization, care and gender—Global complexities (pp. 21–40). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Pedersen, O. K. (2011). Konkurrencestaten. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels forlag.Google Scholar
  53. Pringle, R., & Watson, S. (2004). Women’s interests and the post-structuralist state. In A. Phillips (Ed.), Feminism and politics (pp. 203–223). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rasmussen, L. D. (2012). (H)vide verden—om relationer mellem professionsidentiteter og kvalitetssikring, Ph.D. thesis. Roskilde: Department of Society and Globalisation, Roskilde University.Google Scholar
  55. Rose, N. (2000). Powers of freedom: Reframing political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sahlin-Andersson, K. (2002). National, international and transnational constructions of new public management. In T. Christensen & P. Lægreid (Eds.), The transformation of ideas and practice (pp. 43–72). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  57. Schmidt, L. H. (1995, August). Velfærd til forhandling. Social forskning, pp. 99–107.Google Scholar
  58. Stone, D. (2000). Caring by the book. In M. H. Meyer (Ed.), Care work, gender, labour and the welfare state (pp. 89–111). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Toulmin, S. (1952). The philosophy of science. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  60. Tronto, J. (1993). Moral boundaries. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  61. Tronto, J. (2010). Creating caring institutions: Politics, plurality and purpose. Ethics & Social Welfare, 4(2), 158–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Tronto, J. (2013). Caring democracy—Markets, equality and justice. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Vabø, M., & Szebehely, M. (2012). A caring state for all older people? In A. Anttonen, L. Häikiö, & K. Stefánsson (Eds.), Welfare state, universalism and diversity (pp. 121–143). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  64. Wærness, K. (1987). On the rationality of caring. In A. Showstack-Sassoon (Ed.), Women and the state (pp. 207–234). London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  65. Weber, M. (1921). Wirtschaft und gesellschaft. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr.Google Scholar
  66. Williams, F. (2010, July 8–11). Claiming and framing in the making of care politics: The recognition and redistribution of care. Paper presented at the 5th International Carers Conference: New Frontiers in Caring, Leeds.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social Sciences and BusinessRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark

Personalised recommendations