Exportar Publicação

Oliveira, E. C. de., Branco, R. & Suleman, F. (N/A). Running fast, just to stay in the same place? Social movements, political parties, and the politics of the Portuguese Informal Caregiver Statute (2015–2019). Social Policy and Society. N/A

E. C. Oliveira et al.,  "Running fast, just to stay in the same place? Social movements, political parties, and the politics of the Portuguese Informal Caregiver Statute (2015–2019)", in Social Policy and Society, vol. N/A, N/A

@article{oliveiraN/A_1764968227440,
	author = "Oliveira, E. C. de. and Branco, R. and Suleman, F.",
	title = "Running fast, just to stay in the same place? Social movements, political parties, and the politics of the Portuguese Informal Caregiver Statute (2015–2019)",
	journal = "Social Policy and Society",
	year = "N/A",
	volume = "N/A",
	number = "",
	doi = "10.1017/S1474746425100882",
	url = "https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-policy-and-society"
}

TY  - JOUR
TI  - Running fast, just to stay in the same place? Social movements, political parties, and the politics of the Portuguese Informal Caregiver Statute (2015–2019)
T2  - Social Policy and Society
VL  - N/A
AU  - Oliveira, E. C. de.
AU  - Branco, R.
AU  - Suleman, F.
PY  - N/A
SN  - 1474-7464
DO  - 10.1017/S1474746425100882
UR  - https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-policy-and-society
AB  - This article examines the political dynamics behind Portugal’s 2019 Informal Caregiver Statute (ICS), focusing on how social movements influenced the policy process through political mediation. The statute was prompted by caregiver mobilisation and advanced in parliament by partisan allies, despite initial government resistance. The movement’s influence relied on a favourable political opportunity structure, supportive media and public opinion, and the strategic securing of political allies. However, parties integrated the movement’s demands with their own, often conflicting, agendas. In the end, key demands, such as caregiver allowances, pension credits for care work, and expanded public services, were only partially fulfilled. The ICS represents a broad yet limited compromise that reinforces the family’s role as the main care provider. This shift from ‘familism by default’ to ‘supported familism’ may ultimately hinder a transition to ‘optional familism’, which would frame care as a choice and necessitate a significant expansion of formal public services.
ER  -