In recent years, a live-in migrant care (LIMC) market has emerged in European countries with specific care, migration, and employment regime features. In countries with relatively low levels of formal long-term care (LTC) provision, people in need of care and their families have started purchasing LTC directly from individual - mostly migrant - workers who live-in with the person in need of care. Previous research has shown that this arrangement is facilitated by the availability of cash-for-care benefits that can be freely used by the beneficiaries, and/or by low levels of regulation of employment and migration. The Netherlands traditionally features strong, universal and generous LTC policies. However, recently, the phenomenon of LIMC has also appeared there. Based on exploratory qualitative research, this article examines the features of Dutch LIMC and the factors that foster or hinder its development. Our findings show that the ongoing restructuring of the Dutch LTC system - particularly the emphasis on informal care and decreasing accessibility of institutional care - are important factors pushing an LIMC market. At the same time, various institutional factors limit its growth, particularly the high levels of regulation of the Dutch care, migration and employment regimes. Further cutbacks in the care sector might push more families to this market in the near future, and change the character of the Dutch LTC sector. The Dutch case is relevant for other countries with longstanding traditions of generous LTC services which currently undergo retrenchment, and sheds light on routes to institutional change.

Additional Metadata
Keywords Live-in migrant care, Long-term care, Marketization of care, Migrant care work
Persistent URL dx.doi.org/10.1111/spol.12174, hdl.handle.net/1765/84578
Journal Social Policy and Administration
Citation
Da Roit, B, & van Bochove, M.E. (2017). Migrant Care Work Going Dutch? The Emergence of a Live-in Migrant Care Market and the Restructuring of the Dutch Long-term Care System. Social Policy and Administration, 51(1), 76–94. doi:10.1111/spol.12174