Organization and Supply of Long-term Care Services for the Elderly: A Bird’s-eye View of Old and New EU Member States
by Monika Riedel, Markus Kraus, Susanne Mayer (November 2016)
This article provides an overview of the organization of formal long-term care (LTC) systems for the elderly in ten old and 11 new EU member states (MS). Generally, we find that the main responsibility for regulating LTC services is centralized in half of these countries, whereas in the remaining countries, this responsibility is typically shared between authorities at the central level and those at the regional or local levels in both institutional and home-based care. Responsibilities for planning LTC capacities are jointly met by central and non-central authorities in most countries. Access to publicly financed services is rarely means tested, and most countries have implemented legal entitlements conditional on needs. In virtually all countries, access to institutional care is subject to cost sharing, which also applies to home-based care in most countries. The relative importance of institutional LTC relative to home-based LTC services differs significantly across Europe. Although old MS appear to be experiencing some degree of convergence, institutional capacity levels still span a wide range. Considerable diversity may also be observed in the national public–privatemix in the provision of LTC services. Lastly, free choice between public and private providers exists in the vast majority of these countries. This overview provides vital insights into the differences and similarities in the organization of LTC systems across Europe, especially between old and newMS, while also contributing valuable insight into previously neglected topics, thus broadening the knowledge base of international experience for mutual learning. (author’s abstract)
by Elspeth Guild (November 2016)
According to the British Prime Minister, Theresa May, “Brexit means Brexit” and the UK will be leaving the EU. From the various statements issued by the Prime Minister and her new Home Secretary, “Brexit means Brexit” seems to mean that “Brexit means in any event the end of free movement of (non-British) EU citizens to the UK in particular for the purposes of extended residence, work and self-employment”. There is much discussion in the media and political circles regarding a ‘hard’ Brexit and a ‘soft’ Brexit, although exactly what the difference may be is unclear. It would seem that a ‘soft’ Brexit would include access for the UK to the EU’s internal market on terms similar to those it currently has as a member state. But this is only possible if there is a deal on free movement of EU citizens to the UK, which is acceptable to the other member states. A ‘hard’ Brexit appears at the moment to mean a UK departure for the EU without preferential access to the internal market and perhaps a fall-back position of movement of goods, services and capital as regulated by the World Trade Organisation agreements on customs and tariffs.
by Laetitia Hauret, Ludivine Martin, Nessrine Omrani, Donald R. Williams (November 2016)
Existing evidence on Human Resource Management (HRM) strategy has been limited to separate analyses of the relationship between exposure to or participation in HRM and employee attitudes which affect overall firm performance. This paper is the first to integrate the two perspectives in a single analysis. Using employer-employee matched data with both exposure and participation measures, we find that a high exposure to HRM is not sufficient to improve employee attitudes when the level of employee participation in HRM is taken into account. Furthermore, based on a Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition, the results suggest that employee involvement in HRM practices affects the value employees place on their personal, occupational and workplace characteristics.
See all publications