Description
Demographic changes – such as population ageing, declining birth rates, and the rise of single-person households – lead to a growing demand for care in Western societies and to increasing concerns about the supply of care workers. As populations age, the demand for long-term care to assist older adults with daily activities is projected to grow – by more than 33 per cent across Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries by 2050. Rising demand and costs, particularly in the long-term care sector, combined with persistent labour shortages in healthcare, are straining Western governments’ ability to maintain high-quality care provision (van der Steen, 2023; OECD, 2024). The increasing costs of care, combined with a limited supply of care workers and an erosion of family support, pose significant challenges for Western governments in sustaining and delivering care services. Moreover, the recent ‘loneliness epidemic’, which especially affects young adults and people in mid-life, further emphasizes the growing need for social support and care.
Historically, family bonds have been the predominant social relations people rely on for the exchange of care and support, such as childcare and informal care to older or ill family members as well as the exchange of financial, emotional and practical help. However, over the past century family structures have undergone significant changes due to demographic processes such as low fertility rates, rising divorce rates, increased family complexity and a growing number of single individuals. These shifts in family structures and the diversification of relationships have likely weakened traditional norms on the role of family as caretakers
The challenges faced by families and welfare systems in providing care have sparked debates among scholars and politicians about the role of participatory society and a reliance on alternative care options, such as market-based solutions, informal non-family networks and community-level (bottom-up) organizations. Moreover, these shifts in demand and supply related to care raise fundamental questions about the organization of care among the state, family members and community in meeting the population’s care needs. In this cluster, we aim to study ‘solidarity’ and ‘social embeddedness’ as important and tangible aspects of social cohesion, as the latter is a quite abstract concept that involves the analysis of an entire society. Solidarity can mean the perceived (willingness to help) and the practiced (actual provided) care and support for others. Similarly, social embeddedness can mean the perception of connectedness with other people – or lack thereof, loneliness – and the actual existence and quality of social relations with family, friends and the wider society. Changes in (perceived and/or real) social embeddedness may strengthen or weaken solidarity in providing care to others on different levels of society.
Accordingly, this cluster examines the following key questions:
1. How can micro-, meso- and macrolevel factors safeguard shared meaning, connectedness and solidarity among family members without undermining solidarity in other domains, such as the state, community or non-family networks?
2. How can the connectedness between, collaboration of and solidarity between (non-)family members, the government and bottom-up organizations in providing care be strengthened in a sustained way?
Dive Deeper
Project 1 (Utrecht University, history and sociology), ‘Institutional Change in the Organization of Care in the Netherlands’, explores why and how institutional care arrangements have evolved over time in the Netherlands. It takes an institutional perspective (i.e., institutional isomorphism, complementarity) that emphasizes the dynamic interactions among families, local communities, organizations and the state in their changing roles in providing care, along with the underlying norms and ideologies shaping these interactions. Drawing on a historical review of the institutional context spanning the long 20th century and incorporating theoretical insights from organizational and historical sociology, this study aims to clarify the normative and ideological mechanisms driving these changes. This helps explain why and how certain types of organizations – such as families, local initiatives and the state – became more prominent in providing care over time while others declined, and the impact of these shifts in the organization of care on collaboration, solidarity and responsibility among citizens, families, the state and non-family networks.
Project 2 (Radboud University, sociology; Utrecht University, psychology), ‘Providing Informal Care to Loved Ones at the Expense of One’s Social Relations?’, studies whether, why and under which conditions providing informal care has consequences for informal carers’ social relations, that is, for the quality of their relationship with their partner, friends, and family members with whom they share (or do not share) care tasks. Its three main goals are first to evaluate how much and in what ways informal care impacts informal caregivers’ social relations, offering an empirical basis for the size of the potential social problem and contributing to the literature on the consequences of informal care, which has often overlooked this outcome; second, to reveal the mechanisms through which informal care influences social relations by combining sociological and social-psychological theory, providing both theoretical progress and insights for effective policy development; third, to identify and test conditions under which informal care might have negative or even positive effects on social embeddedness, enhancing our understanding of the role of institutions, most notably the normative expectations present in the caregiver’s direct social network and wider society.
Project 3 (Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demography Institute [NIDI], demography; University of Groningen, philosophy), ‘The Rise in Singlehood and the Social Embeddedness of Singles’, combines demography with philosophy to study the social embeddedness (social relations, belonging and solidarity) of the growing number of young and mid-life singles in the Netherlands. It has three aims: to understand how the experience of singlehood is influenced by various intersectional factors, including gender, race, class and socio-economic status; to examine singles’ embeddedness in society in terms of social relations, solidarity (social participation) and loneliness (social, emotional and existential); and to examine the relation between contextual characteristics (e.g., welfare state regulations, norms and social network characteristics) and singles’ well-being. Through different sub-projects, the study examines how the social relations of singles and societal recognition evolve, aiming to identify ways to preserve social cohesion amid increasing individualization.
Overlap and Common Ground Between the Projects
The three PhD projects share common ground at three conceptual levels that are foundational to the ‘Family and Care’ cluster. All three focus on the normative and institutional contexts in which the family exists, shaping the meaning of family, responsibilities and solidarity with non-family members regarding care. Related to this, they all employ a dynamic view of the family and its evolving role in providing care, influenced by external factors such as the rise and decline of the welfare state, individual household composition and informal versus formal support. Additionally, they all use a multilevel approach that examines the broader care ecosystem with various stakeholders and investigates inequalities in access to this ecosystem – such as those experienced by single individuals, informal caregivers and different socio-economic groups over time.
Added Value of Having These Projects Together in a Cluster/Synergy
Conceptual and Theoretical Benefits: The three projects collectively develop theories on the role of institutions in caregiving and solidarity. Project 1 maps the historical development of caregiving institutions, Project 2 examines the (often unintended) consequences of the welfare state’s shift towards more informal caregiving and Project 3 investigates whether society adequately addresses the position of a specific group, namely singles, in the institutional landscape outlined in Project 1.
Moreover, the three projects develop theories about the role of family in society today. They go beyond traditional family notions by also examining the importance of non-family actors or ‘chosen families’. Both for informal caregivers (Project 2) and singles (Project 3), the social embeddedness in a wider network (Project 1) can be of crucial importance for their own well-being and care needs. Finally, the three projects develop theories on how normative expectations relate to institutions (Project 1) and individuals’ social embeddedness and well-being (Project 2 and 3).
Methodological Benefits: The data sources and methods developed in each project will mutually benefit one another. For example, the historical measurements created to study changes in family organization and norms in Project 1 will also be helpful for the themes in Projects 2 and 3, and vice versa. There are also possibilities for collaboration on joint projects between Project 1 and Project 3. Moreover, Projects 2 and 3 study similar concepts/outcomes, such as social relations or social embeddedness, potential unmet care needs and normative expectations about who is responsible for care. A shared data collection could be conducted in the Longitudinal Internet Studies for the Social Sciences (LISS) panel, measuring these concepts as well as gathering data to answer specific questions for each project.
Key Insights: While Project 1 adopts a long-term approach to examining alternative ways of organizing care in the 20st century, drawing on historical experience, the insights from Projects 2 and 3 will focus on how these historical shifts that led to the organization of care in the current era affect the daily experiences and conditions of care providers and to what extent certain groups might be overlooked in these shifts. Projects 2 and 3 also enable comparisons between the experiences of those needing care (such as singles) and the perspectives of providers. The different focuses of the three projects will make it possible to identify various conditions at multiple levels, providing a more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of the factors that lead to both positive and negative outcomes when organizing care differently, in terms of solidarity, responsibility and well-being.
PhD-Surpassing Output: A joint workshop with stakeholders in 2027, from which ideas for collective (white or academic) papers may follow; joint policy recommendations involving supervisors by the end of the project.
Social Implications: Using insights from these projects helps us examine whether some groups might have no one to turn to with potential care needs or are socially alienated, as well as potential downsides of relying too heavily on family or neighbourhood networks. The combined insights from all three projects can guide policy in creating a care system where various providers, including family, non-family and government care, can support each other, reducing some of the burdens and stresses of caregiving. Moreover, the projects provide suggestions for how to create contexts that foster social embeddedness and minimize social isolation and social segregation. The projects provide insights for policymakers into the consequences for or position of two often overlooked but growing groups: singles and informal caregivers, also showing how to include these groups.
Sustainability of SOCION Family and Care Cluster: Furthermore, these projects provide valuable starting points for the future development of PhD research. The theoretical and methodological approach used to study the Dutch context in the first batch of projects will open new opportunities and help guide the development of similar projects in the future, enabling international comparisons.