Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:56:07.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Financial planning for social care in later life: the ‘shadow’ of fourth age dependency

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2012

DEBORA PRICE ,
DINAH BISDEE ,
TOM DALY ,
LYNNE LIVSEY  and
PAUL HIGGS
DEBORA PRICE*
Affiliation:
Institute of Gerontology, King's College London, UK.
DINAH BISDEE
Affiliation:
Institute of Gerontology, King's College London, UK.
TOM DALY
Affiliation:
Institute of Gerontology, King's College London, UK.
LYNNE LIVSEY
Affiliation:
Institute of Gerontology, King's College London, UK.
PAUL HIGGS
Affiliation:
Institute of Gerontology, King's College London, UK. University College London, UK.
*
Address for correspondence: Debora Price, Institute of Gerontology, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As policy makers in the United Kingdom and many other countries grapple with financing the needs of an ageing population, financial planning for social care in later life is high on political agendas. We draw on qualitative research with older couples in the United Kingdom about their intimate money practices to analyse the day-to-day meanings attributed to money, saving and consumption in the context of financial planning for later life and death. We find that expenditure on funerals and home adaptations is discussed, negotiated and planned, as is ‘downsizing’ to release capital from the home for financing day-to-day expenses and leisure expenses. These outcomes are within easy contemplation and indeed money practice of older couples. In contrast, end-of-life planning for domiciliary or residential care was virtually non-existent across all socio-economic groups, and couples employed a range of techniques to avoid making these discussions ‘real’. Costs (while well known) are seen as astronomical, details are scarce, intensive domiciliary care is never discussed, and death is seen as preferable to residential care. We theorise antipathy to care planning as a product of social and psychological construction of the ‘fourth age’ as a period of abjection, and therefore ‘wasted’ expenditure. Exhortations by policy makers for individuals to consider care costs will be ineffective without recognition of the cultural transformation of later life.

Keywords

social careend-of-lifefourth agecouplesfinancial planningcare costs
Type
Articles
Information
Ageing & Society , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , March 2014 , pp. 388 - 410
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Banks, J., Lessof, C., Nazroo, J., Rogers, N., Stafford, M. and Steptoe, A. (eds) 2010. Financial Circumstances, Health and Well-being of the Older Population in England: The 2008 English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (Wave 4). Institute for Fiscal Studies, London.Google Scholar
Burstow, P. 2011. Speech by Paul Burstow at Kings Fund Social Care Reform Event, June 29 2011. Available online at http://www.healthhotel.org.uk [Accessed 30 June 2011].Google Scholar
Chatzitheochari, S. and Arber, S. 2011. Identifying the Third Agers: an analysis of British retirees’ leisure pursuits. Sociological Research Online, 16, 4, 3.Google Scholar
Dilnot Commission 2011. Commission on Funding of Care and Support. Department of Health. Available online at http://www.dilnotcommission.dh.gov.uk/ [Accessed 30 June 2011].Google Scholar
Elsinga, M., Jones, A., Quilgars, D. and Toussaint, J. 2010. Households’ Perceptions on Old Age and Housing Equity. Combined Report WP2. University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.Google Scholar
Estes, C. L. 2001. Crisis, the welfare state and aging. Ideology and agency in the social security privatisation debate. In Estes, C. L. and Associates (eds), Social Policy and Aging – A Critical Perspective. Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, 95–117.Google Scholar
Gilleard, C. and Higgs, P. 2010. Aging without agency: theorizing the fourth age. Aging and Mental Health, 14, 2, 121–28.Google Scholar
Gilleard, C. and Higgs, P. 2011 a. Ageing, abjection and embodiment in the fourth age. Journal of Aging Studies, 25, 8, 135–42.Google Scholar
Gilleard, C. and Higgs, P. 2011 b. Frailty, disability and old age: a re-appraisal. Health, 15, 5, 475–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gjonça, E., Tabassum, F. and Breeze, E. 2006. The socio-demographic characteristics of the ELSA population. In Banks, J., Breeze, E., Lessof, C. and Nazroo, J. (eds), Retirement, Health and Relationships of the Older Population in England: The 2004 English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (Wave 2). Institute for Fiscal Studies, London, 17–28.Google Scholar
Higgs, P. and Gilleard, C. 2010. Generational conflict, consumption and the ageing welfare state in the United Kingdom. Ageing & Society, 30, 8, 1439–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HM Government 2008. The Case for Change – Why England Needs a New Care and Support System. The Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
HM Government 2009. Shaping the Future of Care Together. Cm7673. The Stationery Office, London.Google Scholar
Hurd, M. D. 1990. Research on the elderly: economic status, retirement, and consumption and saving. Journal of Economic Literature, 28, 565–637.Google Scholar
Martin, D. 2011. Don't Rely on the State for Care and Accept the ‘Nasty Truth’, Elderly Are Told, 30 June. Available online at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2009697/Dont-rely-state-care-accept-nasty-truth-elderly-told.html [Accessed 30 November 2011].Google Scholar
Mullan, P. 2000. The Imaginary Time Bomb – Why an Ageing Population is Not a Social Problem. I. B. Tauris, London.Google Scholar
Parkinson, S., Searle, B., Smith, S., Stoakes, A. and Wood, G. 2009. Mortgage equity withdrawal in Australia and Britain: towards a wealth-fare state? International Journal of Housing Policy, 9, 4, 365–89.Google Scholar
Peace, S., Holland, C. and Kellaher, L. 2006. Environment and Identity in Later Life. Open University Press, Maidenhead, UK.Google Scholar
Pensions Policy Institute 2009. Retirement Income and Assets – How Can Housing Support Retirement? Pensions Policy Institute, London.Google Scholar
Phillipson, C. 2000. Intergenerational conflict and the welfare state – American and British perspectives. In Pierson, C. and Castles, F. G. (eds), The Welfare State Reader. Polity Press in Association with Blackwell Publishers, Malden, Massachusetts, 293–307.Google Scholar
Polivka, L. 2011. Neoliberalism and postmodern cultures of aging. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 30, 2, 173–84.Google Scholar
Price, D. 2006. Why are older women in the UK poor? Quality in Ageing and Older Adults, 7, 2, 23–32.Google Scholar
Rowlingson, K. and McKay, S. 2005. Attitudes to Inheritance in Britain. Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York, UK.Google Scholar
Senior, A. 2009. Care in Old Age – We Won't Pay, the State Can't, 20 November. Available online at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6924020.ece [Accessed 23 November 2009].Google Scholar
Smith, J. 2004. Exploring attitudes to housing wealth and retirement. Housing Finance, 63, 34–44.Google Scholar
Sodha, S. 2005. Housing-rich, Income-poor – The Potential of Housing Wealth in Old Age. Institute for Public Policy Research, London.Google Scholar
Stevenson, J. 2008. Planning for the future – long-term care and the 2008 election. New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 1985–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Strauss, A. and Corbin, J. 1998. Basics of Qualitative Research. Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Sage, London.Google Scholar
Terry, R. and Gibson, R. 2010. Can Equity Release Help Older Home-owners Improve Their Quality of Life? Joseph Rowntree Foundation, York, UK.Google Scholar
Vogler, C., Brockmann, M. and Wiggins, R. 2006. Intimate relationships and changing patterns of money management at the beginning of the twenty-first century. British Journal of Sociology, 57, 3, 456–82.Google Scholar
Vogler, C. and Pahl, J. 1994. Money, power, and inequality within marriage. The Sociological Review, 42, 263–88.Google Scholar
Wanless, D. 2007. Age Old Problems – The Government Cannot Afford to Ignore the Urgent Challenges of How We Pay For, and Provide, Social Care, 25 April. Available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/apr/25/longtermcare.housinginretirement [Accessed 4 December 2009].Google Scholar
Willetts, D. 2010. The Pinch. How the Baby Boomers Took Their Children's Future – and Why They Should Give it Back. Atlantic Books, London.Google Scholar
Willig, C. 2001. Introducing qualitative research in psychology. Buckingham, Open University Press.Google Scholar